hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

It all began in New York City

  • Subject: [cg] It all began in New York City
  • From: TheBynums@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 EPA´s 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





 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index