PART FOUR

The federal National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), in Bethesda, Maryland,
has published a new report describing the "developmental effect" of chemicals on humans and
animals. "Developmental effects" are those that occur during the earliest time of life when the
young are developing in the womb, or in the egg. With the publication of this report, ideas and
data developed by Dr. Theo Colborn and many of her colleagues have entered the mainstream
of the nation's scientific and medical thinking. A new era of environmental toxicology has begun.
We believe that the work of Dr. Colborn and her colleagues will eventually be seen to be as
important as the work of Rachel Carson, who woke the nation to the dangers of pesticides and
atomic fallout in her book Silent Spring. HWN #365 Nov 25 1993

What Colborn and her colleagues have discovered, examined, and documented is that many
chemicals in common use since World War II enter the bodies of humans, domestic animals, and
wildlife, chiefly through contaminated food and water, and that these chemicals mimic hormones.
The body mistakes them for natural hormones and reacts to them in ways that cause deep and
permanent trouble, especially when exposure occurs during the critical period of development
before, and immediately after, birth or hatching.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals mimic hormones, but with one key difference. Natural hormones
do their work as messenger (or as stimulant of a cascade of other effects), and then the body
disassembles them and removes them from the blood stream. In contrast, when industrial
chemicals and pesticides mimic hormones, they do not disappear quickly. They tend to remain in
the body for very long periods, doing the work of hormones at times, and in ways, that are
inappropriate and destructive.

Certain organs appear to be particularly vulnerable to developmental abnormalities when the
mother is exposed to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In female fetuses, the most vulnerable
organs are: breasts, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina. In male fetuses, the critical
organs are prostrate, seminal vesicles {where sperm originates},
epididymides {a reservoir for sperm}, and testicles.

In both sexes, critical organs are the external genitals, the brain, skeleton, thyroid, liver, kidney
and immune system because they are all targets for steroid hormone action.

Although the report begins by highlighting the role of "steroid hormones", much of the discussion
centers on the particular hormone called estrogen because most industrial
endocrine-disruptors mimic estrogen.

The report offers a very long list of problems caused in both female and male children of
DES-exposed mothers. DES-exposed humans thus serve as a model for exposure during early
life to any estrogenic chemical, including pollutants in the environment that are estrogen agonists
{mimickers or enhancers}"

EPA punished Jenkins for her whistleblowing by giving her no assignments during almost 2
years; in April 1992 she was finally given work to do, but it was clerical. She holds a Ph.D. in
chemistry. Jenkins filed a complaint with the Department of Labor. The Labor Department found
in her favor, that she was being illegally harassed. But EPA appealed that decision to an
administrative law judge, thus continuing the harassment. The judge ruled in Jenkins's favor, but
EPA--now with Carol Browner at the helm--appealed again, this time to the Secretary of Labor.
He eventually found in Jenkins's favor, thus ending the long period of harassment. Jenkins was
reinstated and her attorney fees were paid.

Sanjour summarizes, "When Jenkins made her allegations, and when the veterans groups made
known the full implications of those allegations, a government with a decent respect for the
welfare of its armed forces would have publicly ordered a full and impartial investigation with all
the resources and support necessary and let the chips fall where they may. Instead, our top
government officials were silent or even worse, they let it be known that they despised the
messenger and had nothing but friendly feelings for the accused. The United States government
gave no support or encouragement to a scientific, civil, or criminal investigation of Monsanto."
HWN #400  Jul 28 1994

The immune system is a complex set of specialized cells and organs that defends the body
against attack by "foreign" invaders. When it functions properly, the immune system fights off
disease caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, and cancer cells. When it malfunctions,
however, it can unleash a torrent of diseases, from allergy to arthritis to cancer to Aids,"
according to the federal National Institutes of Health (NIH).

At the heart of the immune system is the ability to distinguish between self and nonself. A healthy
immune system protects the "self" and attacks only the "nonself". It is able to remember previous
experiences and react accordingly: once you have had chicken pox, your immune system will
prevent you from getting it again. The immune system displays both enormous diversity and
extraordinary specificity; not only is it able to recognize many millions of distinctive nonself
molecules, it can produce molecules and cells to match up with and counteract each one of
them. And it has at its command a sophisticated array of weapons.

"The success of this system in defending the body relies on an incredibly elaborate and dynamic
regulatory-communications network. Millions and millions of cells, organized into sets and
subsets, pass information back and forth like clouds of bees swarming around a hive. The result
is a sensitive system of checks and balances that produces an immune response that is prompt,
appropriate, effective, and self-limiting."

Lydia Woods Schindler, Understanding the Immune System {NIH Publication no. 88-529}
Bethesda, Md: National Institute of Health July 1988, p. 1

The immune system can fail in two ways: if it is damaged, it can fail to attack foreign invaders,
and can thus allow infections or cancers to develop. On the other hand, if the immune system
fails to distinguish self from nonself, it can overreact and attack the self, causing "autoimmune"
diseases such as arthritis, asthma, lupus, or Type I diabetes (insulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus). Other autoimmune diseases include scleroderma, Graves' disease, Addison's disease,
Hashimoto's disease, myasthenia gravis, lymphocytic adenohypophysitis (also called Sheehan's
syndrome), mucocutaneous candidiasis, Schmidt's syndrome, and autoimmune thyroid disease.

Linda Birnbaum, director of research at the U.S.EPA Health Effects Laboratory in Research
Triangle Park, N.C., was the leader of EPA scientific team reassessing dioxin. She says, "Dioxin
appears to be a carcinogen in fish, rodents, and other mammals, including humans. But dioxin
can also modulate {modify} the immune system resulting in an inability to fight disease. It is a
very  powerful immune suppressant. But it can also upregulate {excite} the immune system so
that you start becoming hypersensitive, developing autoimmunity and allergies. Depending upon
the stage {of growth} of the animal and the species, sometimes you observe immunosuppression
and in other cases you observe upregulation."

Birnbaum goes on to describe Taiwanese children exposed to dioxin-like chemicals, who had
unusually frequent respiratory infections and ear infections (otitis). Further, she described an
Inuit population in Quebec with elevated levels of dioxin in their bodies from eating the fat of
marine mammals (seals); their children have 'very high incidences of respiratory infections and
otitis {ear infections}, and also a very decreased take of vaccinations, " Birnbaum says.

USEPA, Health Assessment Document for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
Related Compounds Vol, III of III [EPA/600/BP-92/001c} (Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S.EPA
August 1994.

Linda Birnbaum, Great Lakes Water Quality Board 102nd Meeting Chicago, Ill. July 15, 1993,
presentation by Linda Birnbaum, U.S.EPA Dec 21, 1993. Environment and Health Weekly #414

U.S.EPA's 1994 draft reassessment of dioxin emphasized that dioxin damages the immune
system directly and indirectly. From studies of rate, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, cattle, marmosets,
monkeys, and humans, EPA concludes that even low doses of dioxin attack the immune system.
Dioxin directly reduces the number of B cells (immune cells that develop in the bone marrow,
then circulate throughout the blood and lymph, fighting off invaders). And it reduces the number
of T cells (immune cells that develop in the thymus, then circulate throughout the body, attacking
invaders), but dioxin's attack on T cells seems to be indirect.

EPA then says, "Furthermore, because TCDD alters the normal differentiation of immune system
cells, the human embryo may be very susceptible to long-term impairment of immune function
from in utero {in the womb} effects of TCDD on developing immune tissue." In other words, dioxin
can prevent the immune system from developing properly in an unborn child, with lifelong
consequences, EPA believes. "Animal studies suggest that some immunotoxic responses may be
evoked at very low levels of dioxin exposure," EPA says.

Environment and Health Weekly #475 Jan 4 1996

During the early Reagan years, top EPA officials did their part to prevent recognition of the
nation's dioxin problem; EPA chief Anne Burford and her assistant, Rita Lavelle, were
eventually fired for dioxin-related shenigans, and Buford's successor, John Hernandez, resigned
in disgrace after a Congress investigated his role in the altering of a report on dioxin in the Great
Lakes. Congress then appropriated $4 million for a nationwide study of dioxin in the environment.
Preliminary data from that study, available in 1985, clearly implicated pulp and paper mills in
dioxin contamination of waterways in Minnesota and Maine, and of fish living
downstream from paper mills.

It was paper industry officials who muscled EPA chief William Reilly in early 1001, persuading him
to initiate a multi-year 'scientific reassessment" of dioxin, which EPA promptly got underway in
April, 1991, and which the agency has still not concluded. During the course of that
'reassessment' "information has come to light showing beyond any doubt that dioxin mimics
hormones and disrupts the endocrine (reproductive) system of fish, birds, mammals, and most
likely humans as well.

Statement of Karl Schurr (Ph.D. University of Minnesota. Adjunct Professor, Medical College of
Ohio, Research in Toxicology, Water Resources, Waste Disposal, Genetic Injury
from Chemicals and Bacteriology)

It is impossible for an activated sludge or trickling filter sewage treatment system to remove
harmful chemicals from sludge...sewage sludge technology has not advanced to the
point where the product is safe.

Some of the most pernicious poisons are heavy metals, which are additive in mammals because
they are not excreted properly. A trace taken into the body will remain to injure health over the
long run. It is interesting that some of the same chemicals found in sewage sludge were also
employed by Cesare Borgia and his sister Lucrezia Borgia in Italy during the 1400s to very slowly
poison their political opponents.

Toxicology has advanced to the level where we can document injury to humans from a large
array of chemicals. Some are immediately toxic, some work slowly and additively, some injure the
immune system, some raise blood pressure (to kill later with heart attacks and strokes), some
harm the respiratory system and kill when the injury is sufficient, some cause cancer and some
attack inheritable material in cells. Injury to DNA of chromosomes is particularly unfortunate
because it displays it effects in the next generation of children, (p. 1)

We have a short-fall in knowledge for instance where humans have been exposed to several
toxic chemicals at one time. Synergism is a reaction whereby the effect of two or more chemicals
is much greater than any of the individual components...Untested mixtures of organic and
inorganic poisons, in such materials as sewage sludge, will have synergistic effect that can not
be predicted because scientific experiments of all possible combinations would be so expensive
as to approach the national debt. We become aware of a toxic synergism when an accidental
event takes place. A good example of this is the abortion and death of calves  from cattle which
were studied by the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine. Of a purebred
herd of 101 cows in a single age cohort that were exposed to sewage sludge for only 5 weeks on
a sludge-treated pasture, 26 of 92 calves were aborted or died shortly after birth. After an
exhaustive study, the scientists wrote that the injury was the result of a "complex interaction"
between metals and elements in the sewage sludge. Exactly how this synergism took place could
not be determined. (p. 2)

As an example the Milwaukee sewage authority removed and marketed "Millorganite" as dried
sewage sludge. On last report, this sale of Millorganite fertilizer had been halted
because of excessive heavy metals in the sludge. (1994)

The typical location is rural, with a low valuation for land and poor employment opportunity. The
expectation, of those wanting to make large profits from waste transfer, is to secure permits and
begin operation before the local population can respond to protect itself from what is usually both
a health and economic injury. Marketing the move into a new locality is an art form. Psychologists
are employed to determine a population profile most likely to result in success. One such profile
suggested that the best location would have citizens with low incomes (there by unable to pay for
the legal costs of opposition), low education level, generally of higher than average age, and
conservative political history, "Not in my back yard" (NIMBY) reactions to waste transfer are often
stated by lawyers for the waste transfer company. The idea being that a Judge or state official
will view this as a selfish response by the community targeted for the dumping of waste  products.

He tells about a rural county to the west of Columbus, Ohio where the NIMBY accusation was
used against the county residents and the county government.  The city government of
Columbus, together with Ohio EPA officials, had approved dumping of sewage sludge from
Columbus on the land of a speculator who had overextended himself financially by purchase of
too much property...The sludge became a public health threat and the controversy exploded.

"There was Columbus leadership attacking those in the county, when they would not tolerate any
sludge in Franklin County, the location of Columbus. Furthermore, they refused to allow sludge
to be dumped anywhere to the north of Columbus because two major streams serving as the
water supply to the city might be contaminated by heavy metals, organic poisons or
pathogens from the sludge." (p.5)

In regard to the testimony of Sanjour, "I agree with his evaluation and I have noted all types of
behavior intended to influence officials of a state to favorably respond to the wishes of a waste
transfer company. Like Sanjour, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to see a public official extend
himself to help a waste transfer company and then note this public official being hired at a high
salary by the waste transfer company shortly later. I also wonder about "political contributions" to
elected officials of a state, when they may have influence to aid in approving permits for a
company in the waste transfer business.

Our country has always faced the decisions whereby short-term gains of a few must be balanced
against long-term injury to our citizens. There is no arena where the decisions will be more
bitterly contested than in matters of waste, sludge, toxics, contamination of water, poisoning of
land and the long-term public health of citizens.

The United States has sufficient diffulities, without approving activities which are certain (in my
scientific judgment) to result in reducing the mental capability of our children, poisoning our water
resources, increasing the cancer rate of citizens, increasing miscarriages of embryos and
promoting genetic defects in those babies that come to full term. (p.6)

Transcript to Testimony of Microbiologist, Aaron Margolin
from University of New Hampshire, Durham, N.H. at meeting
of Milton N.H. Board of Selectmen, Sept. 29, 1997

Dr. Betsy Bolton, UNH, Milton resident, introduced Dr. Margolin, who is a microbiologist, certified
in virus and protozoa as far as testing water, a bacteriologist.

My lab is one of the few labs across the country that has the capacity to do that type of testing.
For that reason--for both sludge and for water--you will find that almost all of the regulations
have been promulgated based upon what is known as "indicator bacteria."

These are bacteria that can be found in sludge--that are of fecal origins. (p. 1)

Throughout the literature--it is permeated with many examples--my own labs being one--time and
time again where bacteria are inadequate indicators or predictors of the presence and/or
absence of these other infections organisms, viruses and intestinal parasites. (2)

Basically, I just want to leave you with that to let you know while someone may be able to tell you
what the federal coliform levels are of the sludge--that is well and good and I don't doubt that the
levels are what they are saying they are--but that does not necessarily or adequately predict what
the other pathogens in the sludge are. (p. 2)

One of the biggest problems with biosolids is the concentration of enteric viruses. Enteric viruses
are so small and have characteristics that are very unique to only themselves. One of these
characteristics is that when complexed with organic material and/or particulate material--given
the right temperature (we are not Tucson, Arizona where we get temperatures of 100-110
degrees and we don't have the massive sunshine)--these conditions are extremely ripe for the
long survivability of viruses in sludges, things of that nature--and because of their
characteristics--the way they act as particles--that with the high water table, it makes a perfect
situation for the transport of these infectious agents from the sludge into the underground

Normally you would like to put a column that is sufficient for removal of these infectious agents,
and the column length that is quoted in both the 503s and N.H. and other places, may be
adequate for things like the bacteria and intestinal parasites, due to their size, but it has been
shown again and again in the literature that they are not adequate distances
for the complete removal of these infections viruses. (p. 2)

To some degree those studies are difficult to do because we don't have any what we call  
"nonpathogenic viruses" it is hard for someone like myself to walk up to you and say "by the
way, we would like to do this study...and I am going to put this sludge in there that has all these
viruses like polio--things of that nature, and I want to know if your family gets sick--would you
mind volunteering for this study?"

So it is very difficult to do these kinds of studies--the ultimate thing is you are putting someone in
risk or in danger. NIH (National Institute of Health) frowns on that kind of study. So the other kinds
of studies that have been done is for modelling experiments in a controlled environment where
you would take a soil column, similar to soil that one would find out in the field. And then we will
go ahead and try to emulate the environmental conditions that one would find--periods of wet
weather--periods of dry weather--and then take samples from the bottoms of the soil columns to
determine whether or not viruses have broken through.

These kinds of studies have been done--they are well documented in the journals, and they
have found viruses breaking through. (p. 3)

Q. What about wastewater treatment plant operators--they are around it all the time--wouldn't
they be showing serious infectious diseases?

A. No, but if you look in the literature, you would probably find--and to some degree in
surveys--higher anti-body titers (concentrations) in sewage operators than you would find in the
average individual--and the higher anti-body titers--that is why I asked how you define risk. Most
of these infections are non-apparent--they are subclinical--you don't know you have been
infected--which is good unless you are one of the unfortunate individuals where it is not
sub-clinical and you end up with one of these severe cases. So there has been in the literature
demonstration of sewage operators and wastewater plant operators having higher titers to these
viruses--even to viruses such as hepatitis B--than other individuals who are not wastewater
treatment operators.

It is more the enteric viruses that are of real concern. They are hardy. It has been documented
that under the right environmental conditions, they can survive upwards of a year and travel
miles in underground aquifers. That has been documented.

What your are probably sampling for besides nitrates and heavy metals is fecal coliform and total
coliform because they are traditionally the organisms that have been for the longest time in
society accepted as the standard indices or predictor of the overall sanitary quality of water,
sludge, even shellfish that are eaten raw. It is all based on these fecal coliforms which for the
longest time were all we had to offer. But in the last 10 to 15 years that has gradually changed.
p. 5 they are looking not just at the total coliform and fecal coliform--they are looking at the
protozea--giardia and cryptosporidium--and they are looking at enteric viruses.

You have to remember, once again--I am not faulting any one institution--but all the rules and
regulations you speak about have been made based on the use of nothing more than what are
called 'indcator bacteria'. That is the reason why they started with these large utilities. EPA is
starting to go and look at things like the viruses and intestinal protozoans because we know for
the longest time from countless laboratory studies that these bacteria are not
adequate indicators of these other organisms. (p.6)

My mother is a lupus sufferer which is an autoimmune disease...for someone like her that is an
immuno-compromised individual, all it would take is 1 or 2 cryptospirosis and that essentially
could be her death sentence.  We don't have drugs right now--some are being evaluated--but we
don't have drugs for the treatment of diseases like cryptosporidium--there are no drugs for the
treatment of the viral infections, so for immuno-compromised individuals, it becomes a life or
death matter. (p. 7)

In addition to those who are immuno-compromised, the very young--under one year of age--and
the elderly, are also at risk. (p. 8)

"Not next to my house"  p, 8

I know it is contaminated material--I don't feel it--from many years of experience--I can guarantee

Anaerobic digestion doesn't do anything for the enteric viruses. (p. 9)

It takes pretty labor intensive work for about a month to come up with an answer on whether or
not the sludge is virus free--whether or not we found any viruses in there.  10)

We have done studies--studies have been done on aerobically digested sludge and it usually
doesn't do anything--unless you have come up with a new process that  hasn't made it into the
literature--it doesn't reduce the viruses. The viruses come right through. (p. 10)

If they allow the application of sludge, I really think the proposal I would put in would be to come
back up here and study your town again. Because I think it would be neat little
experiment--especially to actually see what the end results are--because the lab--the lab data
would tell us you guys would end up being exposed to these pathogens.

Dr. Bolton: If you lived in my house, would you do this experiment?

A. If you let me, sure. But I wouldn't want to partake in it.

Dr. B. I don't want to be a guinea pig or my children. p.11

{From a scientific view} But it would be a neat experiment, at the cost of you guys public health.

But when I am talking to you about the infectious organisms, I am not talking anecdotally or from
skepticism--I am talking to you from many years of laboratory experience.

No--in sludge you have pathogens, toxins and heavy metals--the 3 components you have to
worry about. I am just not an expert in the toxins or heavy metals. (p. 12)

John Kane: We were on the council--just after the hearing on it, I happened to have got in
contact with a guy by the name of Ward Stone, Chief pathologist in New York State, (DEC) for
environmental studies. His job is to autopsy all the animals that were coming in. When I asked
him about it, he practically jumped the phone out of my hand...because they were using sludge
to redo the forests in New York State, and since they have started it, he has seen an increase of
spontaneous abortions, mutations, and just all death of these animals that should be surviving in
the area. He is passing on his studies and he is in the process of writing a paper and
accumulating it on the effects of the sludge in the forest  on the natural wildlife. If he could have
come up...he is the chief pathologist, and a man like that I have a lot of respect for. (p. 13)

Margolin I am not sure where you are reading...where did you see the words that "sludge is safe"
by following these regulations? I bring this out--just because there are federal regulations--you
should not get a false sense of security or infer things are safe. There are regulations but that
doesn't mean they are safe. They don't have the Good Housekeeping seal of approval stamped
on them! That is something you have management-wise--that is part of what I proposed to the
state and what I still think needs further study--because a lot of initial regulations were without
the technology that we have today--which is just like--back to the water industry--for the longest
time bacteria were the only realistic tool that we have in evaluating the sanitary quality. The rules
and regs were made up based on that. Now we have better technology, and I think the biggest
mistake the government ever makes is when they say something is finally studied and done. We
need to continue studying it as the technology changes to find out if what they proposed prior is
still considered applicable and safe--or not safe with the use of the current technology. (p. 14)

DR. Bolton  "I have done some research on the lead levels. In fact, I have gotten the paper
where they tested the soil and lead levels...the soil levels right here are incredibly high they
range anywhere from 20 ppm (20 mg/kg) up to 38-40 ppm. I have talked to soil people in
Maine--I have talked to soil people in Pennsylvania. The background level for virgin soil should
be under 10 ppm. Some of these fields have already been sludged, and it is interesting the
correlation that the fields that have been sludged more than one have the highest
lead levels.

The other thing that is of interest--in talking to a gentleman in Pennsylvania, another Ph.D who
has spent 25 years researching lead and copper. In children, 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead
will cause neurologic problems as far as brain function and lower IQs.

When you put that on a scale with what is already on the one field, and this is without even
adding any more sludge--we are talking about the field that already has 38 mg/kg. For my
daughter who is a kindergartener--she would only have to eat 5 grams of that dirt to have
enough toxic lead in her to cause serious problems. That is not acceptable to me--and you
still can't tell me what is in the groundwater.

We are concerned and we are going to caution people buying hay off these fields to start
analyzing this hay for heavy metals and calcium-phosphorus balance. p. 18)

The lead they are proposing to put on those fields out of Franklin (NH), which anaerobically
digested material, has lead levels in some of the batches that they have used which are (90%) of
the EPA 503s right now. That is 270 mg/kg versus 300 which is the top end of the 503s.

The next day Ms Wyatt issued a letter indicating Dr. Margolin's concerns were convincing
enough that they will continue a self imposed moratorium on land application of
biosolids. (p. 19)


First came fever, Then Hamid Mansaray, a young nurse's aide at a remote African hospital,
began to hemorrhage. Blood erupted from his nose and mouth. It burst out of capillaries beneath
his skin and eyes. By the time i reached the village of Panguma in Sierra Leone, Mansaray lay
isolated in a special ward. Doctors had diagnosed an obscure illness called Lassa Fever. Its
cause was a virus, an infective agent so small that 100.000 all clumped together would still be
scarcely visible.

The Lassa virus swarms not only in the blood and urine of infected patients. It can also become
airborne, a major reason CDC scientists categorize this virus as hot.

The virus that caused Lassa fever is one of more than a dozen that researchers call hot
agents--viruses that spread easily, kill swiftly, and have no cures or vacines. Scientists who study
hot viruses have to wear suits hooked to outside air supplies and enter a lab via airtight hatches
that seal behind them, All materials leaving the lab must be sterilized or burned to ensure that
nothing hazardous escapes.

Ebola struck a small village in Sudan in July of 1976. These victims became fevered and began
to bleed. In Zaire a more virulent strain than in 1976 struck in Sept 1993 50 villages
killing 90% of the inhabitants.

When a rare virus does emerge from its seclusion, modern air
travel may offer it a free ride anywhere in the world.

Lassa fever has already been in the United States. In 1989, a 43-year-old mechanical engineer
walked into a suburban Chicago clinic complaining of fever and sore throat. His doctors
prescribed antibiotics and sent him home. The man soon died of Lassa fever. Physicians at the
hospital discovered that the engineer had recently attended his parents' funeral in Nigeria. Both
had shown symptoms of Lassa fever before their deaths. "We had all the makings of a
catastrophe," said C.J. Peters, who directs the CDC's Special Pathogens Branch. More than a
hundred people came in contact with the patient before he died. Fortunately, none became
infected. Standard sanitary procedures at the hospital, made more stringent since the advent of
AIDS, may have prevented disaster. "Next time, said Peters, "we may not be so lucky."
(pp. 66-7)

As soon as a virus enters a living cell, its tightly bundled viral genes begin to unfold and drift
through the cellular fluid. They inject themselves into the cell's own operating instructions,
ordering its reproductive machinery to make multiple copies of the virus. Soon thousands of viral
clones, ready to be unleashed on the outside world, begin to bloat the cell. They keep multiplying
until the swollen cell ruptures, releasing the new viruses to infect nearby cells and repeat the
process. Either way, many viruses kill the cells they invade. If unchecked, such infections can
destroy enough cells to kill the parent organism--in our case  the human host.

Our major defense against disease is our immune system. It springs into action as soon as it
detects an invading virus. The way it works--every virus has a unique shaped molecular
configuration on its surface called antigen. White blood cells known as T cells can spot these
antigens and mobilize the body's defenses. Scientists have learned that tens of thousands of
different contingents of helper T cells patrol the bloodstream, each equipped to recognize a
specific antigen. Such amazing diversity prepares the immune system to identify a vast array of
possible invaders. Once helper T cells spot trouble, they alert specialized agents known as B
cells and killer T cells, which quickly begin to multiply. killer T cells search out cells the virus has
already invaded, chemically puncturing their membranes. Sacrificing the body's own cells, the
killer Ts disrupt the viral takeover. B cells produce molecules called antibodies, which bind to the
invader's surface neutralizing the virus particle.

After the invader is destroyed, armies of T and B cells, called memory cells, remain behind,
ready to spot the virus more quickly should it invade again.

The influenza virus evades the immune system again and again by slightly altering the shape of
their antigens, so memory T and B cells don't recognize them as quickly. The viruses therefore
gain time, consequently triggering the aches, pain, and fevers of flue.

Even in an average year, influenza kills 20,000 US residents. It is particularly dangerous to the
elderly and people whose immune system are already weakened by other diseases. They may
not be able to fight off the infection, which eventually overwhelms their lungs. (p. 76)

Aids researchers have learned that HIV mutates as it copies itself, creating an army of variant
strains within each infected person.

No longer one beast but ten thousand, AIDS viruses now have an unassailable advantage. The
immune system must create a new and different contingent of T cells to battle every new viral
strain. Meanwhile all AIDS viruses can attack and destroy T cells.

"Eventually," said biologist Robert May of Oxford University, "so many different predators simply
overwhelm the immune system." (p.82)

HIV has been broken into types, subtypes, and strains. Scientists have detected at least 7 major
subtypes and thousands of strains.

In 1992 experts at the United States National Academy of Sciences identified 27 viruses that
pose a danger of sparking new epidemics. The list includes familiar viruses, such as influenza,
rabies, yellow fever, and measles. More exotic viruses, however, have already emerged in the

Last May physicians in Gallup, New Mexico, struggled in vain to save a 19-year-old man who had
collapsed suddenly of a runaway lung infection. The youth, healthy and strong, had
been a cross-country track star.

New Mexico deputy medical investigator Richard Malone felt a shudder of dread when he arrived
at the emergency room. "We'd had a case just like this only a month before--a 30 year  old
woman with flue-like symptoms suddenly rushed to the hospital, unable to breathe. We had no
idea what caused her death."

Malone soon discovered a more chilling fact, The young track star had been on his way to attend
his fiancées funeral when he collapsed; she'd died five days before of a similar
swift, mysterious lung infection,

"A lot of us thought "this is it--a new killer flue," recalled one researcher. Tissue samples were
rushed to CDC. Scientists in the Special Pathogens Branch identified a hantavirus. In Asia and
Europe hantaviruses cause a sometimes fatal kidney disease, affecting as many as 200,000
people annually.

CDC researchers now believe the southwestern hantavirus, a relative of the Asian strain, has
been carried for years by common deer mice that range across three-quarters of the U. S. They
find hantavirus in almost 30 percent of the deer mice they have recently tested in the Southwest.

Hanatavirus may, in fact, have long been present, It may have caused isolated and unexplained
fatal lung infections over the years. CDC scientists have now confirmed 69 cases of the newly
identified disease. They worry that new strains of the virus, capable of sparking even deadlier
epidemics could be emerging. Will we be ready? (p. 86)

National Geographies 1994 Viruses Peter Jaret medical writer
based in California.

Comments by County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles indicate that viruses can be moved long
distances once they reach ground water.

Runoff that erodes top soil could carry any type of sludge-borne microorganisms. Runoff from
sludge-amended soil should not be allowed to enter waters that could be used for sources of
drinking water, water contact recreation or drinking by animals that provide food products.

Enteric Viruses

Reference to data presented by the USEPA (1983) indicates that sludge treated only by
mesophilic anaerobic digestion can add 60 to 2000 viable enteric viruses per square inch of land
when sludge is added to meet the nitrogen needs of pasture grass and certain other
crops...Ingestion of a viable enteric virus can pose up to a 30 percent probability of
infection of the intestine.

Researcher scientists of the University of Arizona Department of Soil and Water Science note
(Straub et al 1993) that: (1) because of their small size, viruses probably have the greatest
potential of all pathogens for reaching groundwater: and (2) there has been no study of
downward migration from sludge-amended soils using viruses that adsorb poorly to soil, like
group B coxsackieviruses. They note further that coxsackie B3 virus migrated 18;3 meters (60
feet) through soil when sewage effluent was applied to land to replenish groundwater.

"Shallow aquifers can become contaminated with pathogens from sludge and, depending on
groundwater flow, these organisms may travel significant distances from the disposal site.
Communities that rely on groundwater for domestic use can become exposed to these
pathogens, leading to a potential disease outbreak." (p, 85)

According to a USEPA report, there is little evidence linking groundwater contamination with
sludge-amended soils, although few field studies have been conducted." p.76 Survival of
pathogens in soil and sludge viruses.

"In most field studies, there is no mention of groundwater monitoring at these sites.' p. 84

The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (1984) stated the following in discussing
published findings of various persons who investigated effects of municipal
wastewater on groundwater.

"It appears that three general observations can be derived from the information presented
herein. First, and most important, viruses can and do migrate through soil systems into
groundwater supplies. Although mitigation may occur given the proper conditions, the soil cannot
be considered as a dependable barrier against viral contamination. Second, viruses once
adsorbed to soil particles may desorb. This can occur after a rain storm or after the application
of other low-ionic strength waters to a disposal site and could potentially result in transient spikes
of relatively high virus concentrations in groundwater. The third observation is that traditional
water quality indicators such as coliform bacteria do not necessarily provide adequate indices of
viral contamination in groundwater. A-2 Koerner et al (1979) detected viruses in samples
collected at a depth of 55 feet and 820 feet away from a rapid infiltration site in New
Jersey...Fecal coliforms were not detected in any samples collected at depths below 30 feet
indicating that the viruses were able to migrate much further than the bacteria.

If runoff erodes particles from sludge-amended soil, it could contain microorganisms of any size.
Koerner, E.L., Haws, P.A. (1979) Long-term effects of land application of domestic wastewater:
Vinland, New Jersey Rapid Infiltration Site, EPA0600/2-79-072

Straub, T.M., Pepper. I.L., and Gerba, C.P. (1993) "Hazards from Pathogenic Microorganisms in
land-disposed sewage sludge in Reviews of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology Vol. 132, pp.55-91 Springer-Verlag New York, inc.

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Nellor, M H, Baird, R,B., Smyth, J.R. Health
effects study final report Mar 1984 Appendix B viruses in groundwater literature review
pp B-1 through B-11

Enteric viruses

Meningitis--involves inflammation of the coverings of the brain and spinal cord. It can involve
intense headache, fever, loss of appetite, intolerance to light and sound, rigidity of muscles, and
in severe cases convulsions, vomiting, and delirium leading to death.

Hepatitis caused by Hepatitis A virus can disable young adults previously not infected, and
require convalescence for several months, with symptoms that can include fever, malaise,
anorexia, nausea, and abdominal discomfort. Children usually get mild symptoms.

Myocarditis involves inflammation of the heart muscle. It can involve fever and chest pain.

Nephritis involves inflammation of the kidneys, and in severe cases, blood in the urine and
retention of fluid and urea. Adults are more likely than children to progress to chronic
nephritis and eventual kidney failure.

Pericarditis involves inflammation of the sheath surrounding the heart. It can involve fever and
chest pain.

Encephalitis involves inflammation of the brain. It can involve headache and drowsiness. Severe
cases can involve
come and death.

Herpangina involves fever, headache and vesicular eruption (blister-like sacs) in the throat.

Sporadic viral gastroenteritis, associated with rotavirus infections in winter and spring, can
involve severe dehydration in infants between 6 and 24 months of age resulting from diarrhea
and vomiting. Hospitilization is sometimes required, and death occasionally occurs.

Poliomyelitis (infantile paralysis, polio is a recurring concern where private schools do not require
vaccination of youngsters or non-vaccinated immigrants are exposed. It affects the central
nervous system. Stomach upset or symptoms of influenza occur with abortive poliomyelitis.
Those symptoms are muscle stiffness in the neck and back occur with nonparalytic poliomyelitis.
Symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis and weakness and eventual paralysis of the muscles
occur with paralytic poliomyelitis, which is much less common. Bulbar poliomyelitis affects
muscles of the respiratory system and breathing.

Gastroenteritis associated with reovirus involves inflammation of the stomach and intestines,
usually with cramps and diarrhea. Epidemic viral gastroenteritis associated with Norwalk agent
virus involves vomiting and diarrhea.

Ascaris lumbricoides (round worm) can frequently cause discomfort or severe pain in the
abdomen, sometimes with vomiting and diarrhea. Light infections may be unsuspected until eggs
are found in the feces. In heavy infestations, less than a hundred worms may block the intestine
and require surgical removal to avoid death.

Trichuris triciura (whipworm) can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea in heavy infections.

Toxocara (round worms of dogs or cats) can cause irregular fever, loss of appetite, failure of
children to gain weight, chronic cough, muscle-joint pains or abdominal pains. Lung inflammation
commonly occurs. Occasionally larve wander into the eye and can cause lost of the eye.

Amebiases caused by the protozoan Entamoeba histolytica can involve abdominal discomfort
with diarrhea containing blood or mucous, fever and chills. Dissemination via the blood stream
may occur, producing abscess of the liver or less commonly of the lung or brain.

Cryptosporidiosis caused by the protozoan Cryptosporidium involves diarrhea as the major
symptom and can involve nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and abdominal distension, and
weight loss. Symptoms are gone in well under 30 days in immunologically competent persons.
For immunocompromised persons (e.g., persons with AIDS) disease can be severe and
life-threatening, and the infection may never clear/

Giardiasis caused by the protozoan Giardia can involve chronic diarrhea, fever, anemia,
abdominal cramps, bloating, fatigue, and weight loss, and can involve severe discomfort
associated with toxic effects, and diversion of nutrients.

E&HW Feb 15 1996 # 481 We can recall what reasonable and reliable  data showed that Des
and DDT were both safe for humans and the environment. Unfortunately those reasonable and
reliable data were quite wrong.

David Pimental at Cornell University pointed out in 1993 that U. S. Analytical methods now
employed detect only about one-third of the more than 600 pesticides in use. So estimates must
be substituted for real data. Fifty years into pesticide technology, this lack of data is shocking
and pathetic. Ask yourself who benefits from the absence of such

Science Vol 278 7 Nov 1997 p.995   J. Michael Bishop Md.

Within the next decade or two, cancer is likely to become the leading cause of death in the
United States. This macabre honor might have been avoided and need not be permanent. In
1981, Doll and Peto served notice that the bulk of cancer should be preventable because most
of its causes are avoidable.

A variety of infectious agents have been implicated in human cancers, including two hepatitis
viruses (liver cancer), several papilloma viruses (cervical cancer), Epstein-Barr virus (certain
lymphomas and nasopharyngeal cancer), herpesvirus (Kaposi's sarcoma), and the bacterium
Helicobacter Pylori (stomach cancer). Together these agents account for more than 15 percent
of cancers in developing nations and somewhat less in affluent nations.

Environment and Cancer: Who Are Susceptible? Frederica P. Perera p.1068

Most cancer results from the interaction of genetics and the environment. That is genetic factors
by themselves are thought to explain only about 5% of all cancer. The remainder can be
attributed to external "environmental factors" that act in conjunction with both genetic and
acquired susceptibility. This is an optimistic message for cancer prevention in that exposure to
environmental carcinogens--tobacco smoke, dietary constituents, pollutants (in the workplace,
air, water, and food supply), drugs, radiation, and infectious agents--is theoretically preventable.
But it challenges scientists to document environment-susceptibility interactions and
policy-makers to rapidly translate this knowledge into public health interventions. The pressure is
great: 560,000 people die of cancer every year in the United States and almost 1.4 million new
cases are diagnosed in the United States annually.

Historically, policymakers such as the USEPA have based their decisions on the assumption that
all individuals in a population have the same biologic response to a specified dose of a
carcinogen. These policy-makers are only now becoming aware of the need to account for
interindividual variation  in susceptibility, especially as it affects risks to children. 1069

Experimental and epidemiologic data indicate that, because of differential exposure or
physiological immaturity, infants and children have greater risk than adults from a number of
environmental toxicants, including PAH, nitrosamines, pesticides, tobacco smoke, air pollution,
and radiation.

Relative to body weight, infants and children take in appreciably more food, water, and air--and
any carcinogens contained in them--than do adults. The very young may also have uniquely high
exposures from nursing and other behaviors For example, relative to adults with background
exposure, nursing infants have an estimated 10-to-20-fold greater average daily intake of dioxin,
a carcinogen that accumulates in breast milk.  1071  (39)  Mott, Vance, & Curtis, 1994)

Viruses are submicroscopic pirate inanimate parasites that hijack living cells and then reproduce
inside them at astonishing rates. In most circumstances a virus that gets past the cell's defenses
overwhelms the cell and kills it outright. But in some instances viruses can take up residence in
the cell without killing it; in such cases they bring about a set of changes in their hose cell that,
taken together, convert a normal cell to a cancerous one.

EPA Journal October 1985 p 27 How chemicals can cause cancer

Interestingly, important advances in our understanding of chemical carcinogenesis have been
achieved as a result of work done with oncogens, which are carcinogenic genetic material related
to viruses. With this work comes more and more evidence that viruses, chemicals, and other
factors seem to act in similar ways to induce cancer.