It all began in New York City
- Subject: [cg] It all began in New York City
- From: T*@aol.com
- Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 06:30:26 EDT
New York City has a long history of destroying the health and living
standards of its people in the Bronx and covering up the smell (toxic
bioaerosols) generated from sewage sludge with perfume. New York City, the
State and EPA have done a good in debunking (its on the EPA debunking list at
#7) the concerns of the people -- all to save a few bucks or something more
sinister? Anyone who lives in this area or visits this area is taking there
life in their hands.
7) Bioaerosols--claim need for 2 to 5 mile barrier in
NYC. --- John Walker has since authored a study which shows they are
very dangerous. --- Interesting?
More to come!
Subj: Bob Bastian acknowledges the problem and the solution -- debunking
Date: 5/8/2001 9:42:55 PM Central Daylight Time
From: TheBynums
To: GOSCHAEFER
CC: BASTIAN.ROBERT@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
CC: john.baker@gsa.gov, RUBIN.ALAN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
CC: senator@shelby.senate.gov (ALABAMA SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY)
CC: fox.chuck@epa.gov, smartel@nas.edu
Dear Gary:
I was not surprised to read Bob Bastian's response to you letter and the
type of investigation at Grand Bay, (Al). These gentlemen have a long history
of lying to the public and I have asked them to step forward and make a
public statement concerning the known danger --- which is the reason they, as
well as their criminal investigator --who may be neutral--now, are getting a
copy of the letter.
I understand your feelings. The EPA Inspector General's Office found in 1992,
the sludge site in Kansas City, Missouri had not complied with the federal
law, specifically, its contract requirements concerning our access rights.
They had the guts to tell me they were not required to enforce their contract
requirements or the federal laws. Not only that, but once sludge was dumped
on farmland, the statutory exclusion for agricultural runoff kicked in and
they didn't care were the toxic pollutants went or what it contaminated, our
farm or the river. EPA has been trying to ignore me for nine years now, and
Kansas City seems to think I'm the dumbest thing that ever walked on hind
legs.
This guys have never quite figured out where they are the good guys or the
bad guys.
However, from their writings, they know they are doing some bad things
against the public good.
According to Bob Bastian, writing in his 1995 paper, The
Biosolids (sludge) Treatment, Beneficial Use, and Disposal
Situations in the U.S., EPA is working with the states "to
encourage their adoption of biosolids regulatory programs
that can be approved to carry out delegated programs and
avoid the need for separate U.S. EPA permits, compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities." Having said that, he says:
There are several problems with land application that are
reasons why states are not wanting to accept delegation:
Areas such as the long-term fate of some land applied
pollutants in biosolids [sludge] relative to plant
uptake rates, surface runoff and groundwater movement,
and the potential impacts (both positive and negative)
on wildlife and unmanaged ecosystems are ripe for
further research due to the limited amount of field data
currently available. Future attempts to make the
pathogen control portion of the rule more "risk-based"
will also require additional research efforts. (p.10)
Bastian also has to explain how the treatment process kills off pathogens at
less than 121 degrees C.
Which brings us to EPA/WEF's claim that there have never
been any documented cases of harm from land application of
sewage sludge which is being refuted by the growing list of
victims requesting assistance from the organizations, Help
for Sewage Victims and the National Sludge Alliance. They
came to these organizations for help because the local and
state regulatory agencies and EPA refused to address the
adverse health effects they or their animals were suffering
from exposure to the pollutants in contaminated sludge.
According to EPA's William Sanjour, people who go to the
EPA for help will not find them an ally.
He says:
These are people who start out with a strong faith in
their country and its institutions, who had always
thought of the EPA as the guys in white hats who put the
bad polluters in jail. "If there were anything wrong
with it," they say, "the government wouldn't let them do
it." To their surprise, these folks find that the EPA
officials, rather than being their allies, are at best
indifferent and often antagonistic. They find that the
EPA view them, and not the polluters, as the enemy.
(p. 20)
EPA has not only refused to address any adverse health
effects from the spreading of sewage sludge, but it has given
money to the WEF to debunk victims claims of harm from
exposure to the pollutants in the sludge! For the purpose of
debunking these, what they refer to as "horror stories", EPA
appointed John Walker and Bob Bastian to work with WEF. In
their debunking project, "REST OF THE STORY," Walker and
Bastian enlisted the help of the WEF by giving them an
initial $300 thousand dollar grant. Untold amounts of money
have followed.
In EPA memos dated 10-17-1994, 12-29-1994, and 2-27-
1995, WEF's contribution was discussed and Walker and Bastian
suggested a potential Writer/Coordinator, Dave Trouba, who WEF
could hire for the debunking effort. An additional $650,000
was given to the WEF one year later (WEB page, March 15,
1996). While the announcement did mention a number of
research projects for the newly created WEF Research
Foundation, according to a memo from John Walker, EPA Project
Officer, to Nancy Blatt and Tim Williams, Co-Project Leaders
with WEF, it was clear that the primary purpose of the grant
and the WEF Research Foundation was to debunk the sludge
"horror" stories of people, animals and the environment which
had been harmed by the use of sludge/biosolids.
The EPAïs initial documented list of horror stories in
the EPA memos for WEF to debunk included:
1) Merco/NYC biosolids expose--TV Nations production--
Law suit by TX Attorney General--Merco Lawsuit--
Claims --- EPA's Hugh Kaufman was sued in this case for says, "the
fish off New York are being protected, the people of New York are being
protected, but the people of Texas are being poisoned by New York sludge. A
federal court overturned the conviction.
2) Linda Zander case--sick & dead cattle,
worker health--Farm Bureau and Dairy Today stories. ---- Everyone
conspired to keep Linda Zander from getting her day in court. The courts
opinion was that only the public had to be protected -- not individuals?
3) Miami-Dade County biosolids causing loss of papaya
trees on 100 acres of land--$7 million settlement in
lawsuits by Miami--Dade -covered by United Press.
4) Pending Prime Time TV story on Torres Martinez
(Thermal, Ca.)--corrupt contractor, biosolids
mountain, and composting. -- Contractor went to jail for dumping
sludge on an organic farm. Federal judge did not buy the Part 503 rules.
5) Tree kill in Washington State with King Co METRO
biosolids on Weyerhauser land. --- This cost King County a bundle.
6) Miniature horse deaths in Oklahoma. -- Another case of an individual
with no clout -- never got in court.
7) Bioaerosols--claim need for 2 to 5 mile barrier in
NYC. --- John Walker has since authored a study which shows they are
very dangerous. --- Interesting?
8) Banker Liability concerns--recent article in Banker
magazine saying farmers do not use biosolids.
9) Pathogen regrowth during shipment--Merco. --- A not unusual
situation, since the treatment process does not kill pathogens --- it only
causes them to form spores.
10) Biosolids a cause of AIDS. --- It has been documented that AIDS will
survive in sludge for several days.
11) Biosolids used on ball fields causing Lou Gehrig's
Disease--what it took to debunk this claim. --- Ten years ago Alan
Rubin promised the people of Milwaukee the EPA would investigate. Didn't
happen. In fact, Chromium was removed from Part 503 so Milwaukee could really
get a taste of EPA's ire.
12) Maryland turf grass grower crop loss due to
biosolids use--involved grower's use of a highway
roller on his fields.
13) Raleigh, NC--dead cattle from nitrate poisoning due
to forage with high nitrogen content. Forage
was not mixed with other low-nitrate fodder as
advised by the POTW. --- This says it all --- they were selling
poisoned forage!
14) BLM (Federal Bureau of Land Management) policy
opposing use of biosolids on Federal lands: equating
its use to hazardous waste dumping and landfilling
raising SUPERFUND liability concerns. --- If the government will not
allow sludge to be used on public land -- in spite of a federal policy - what
farmer in is right mind would accept the sludge as a fertilizer?
15) Citizens irate over purchase of farmland for
biosolids use--how land ought to be used is big
issue--private developer conflicts--NIMBY-
personality clashes--often does not involve health
concerns."
According to Walker's memo, the EPA was controlling the
campaign to debunk the negative publicity of adverse health
effects, environmental damages and public concerns from the
use of sludge as a fertilizer. Walker wrote, "the target
audience may be the municipalities, contractors, WEF
spokespersons and other wastewater professionals, and maybe
the general public depending on the case."
Walker's memorandum to Nancy Blatt and Tim Williams of
the WEF explained to them how the "horror stories" should be
addressed:
Some of the cases may be written up for more than one
audience, (i.e., differently for each different
audience)."..."Interestingly, many of us in the
regulatory and municipal arena do not have credibility
with local citizens. We need to get those that do
supplied with "The Rest of the story".
Walker continued:
If the cases were (1) Merco/NYC, (4) Prime Time Torres
Martinez, (9) Pathogen regrowth, and (15) Citizens irate
over purchase; then one audience would be the
municipality." He added further, "The write up would
tell municipalities what went wrong and what to do with
respect to control and management oversight to maximize
public acceptance and minimize negative publicity and
rejection of the recycling that is planned or underway."
Walker's further instructions to WEF's Nancy Blatt were:
If the cases were (2) Zander, (4) Miami-Dade, (5) Tree
Kill, (6) Miniature horses, (7) Bioaerosols, (10) AIDS,
(11) Lou Gehrig's Disease, (12) Turf grass loss, (13)
Dead cattle in NC; then the audience might be the
general public who various anti groups tell the
"horrors" of these cases and to which we would tell the
rest of the story.
According to Walker:
The audience might also be WEF biosolids spokespersons
and/or the wastewater professionals who would be working
with the general public to tell the authoritive truth.
Some of the cases may be written up for more than one
audience, (i.e., differently for each different
audience).
These boys have done some good, they taught me how to write and get attention.
Best regards.
Jim Bynum
_______________________________________________
community_garden maillist - community_garden@mallorn.com
https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
