Re: community_garden digest, Vol 1 #714 - 3 msgs
- Subject: [cg] Re: community_garden digest, Vol 1 #714 - 3 msgs
- From: C* H*
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 22:54:25 -0400
on 5/24/01 11:37 AM, community_garden-admin@mallorn.com at
community_garden-admin@mallorn.com wrote:
>
> Send community_garden mailing list submissions to
> community_garden@mallorn.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the web, visit
> https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> community_garden-request@mallorn.com
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> community_garden-admin@mallorn.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
> "Re: Contents of community_garden digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Cardboard (Steve Mitrione)
> 2. Fwd: Part 7 -- It began in New York (thebynums@aol.com)
> 3. Re: Cardboard (Cyndy Ross)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:36:57 -0600
> From: Steve Mitrione <smitrione@earthlink.net>
> To: community_garden@mallorn.com
> Subject: [cg] Cardboard
>
> I'm considering using cardboard for weed suppression in an organic
> vegetable garden (the quackgrass is out of control). A friend is
> concerned about toxic compounds in the cardboard. Anyone have any
> knowledge about the safety of using cardboard for weed suppression?
>
> Thanks
> -Steve
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> From: TheBynums@aol.com
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:45:21 EDT
> To: colorlines@topica.com, adelporto@arc.org, community_garden@mallorn.com,
> GreenYes@earthsystems.org, TakeAction@environmentaldefense.org,
> Ngoldner@cs.com, pfranklin@familiesusa.org, homelessworld@blazingstar.org,
> ARTISTpres@aol.com, michaelmoore-l@cloud9.net, panupdates@panna.org,
> pennet@envirolink.org, jkleissler@alleghenydefense.org, PAConsumer@aol.com,
> tsp@sunshine-project.org, svtc@svtc.org
> Subject: [cg] Fwd: Part 7 -- It began in New York
>
>
> --part1_2f.158e1ea9.283db3a1_boundary
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
> --part1_2f.158e1ea9.283db3a1_boundary
> Content-Type: message/rfc822
> Content-Disposition: inline
>
> Return-path: <TheBynums@aol.com>
> From: TheBynums@aol.com
> Full-name: TheBynums
> Message-ID: <35.156779e6.283b925b@aol.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 05:58:51 EDT
> Subject: Part 7 -- It began in New York
> To: BRUNO@SENATE.STATE.NY.US, CONNOR@SENATE.STATE.NY.US,
> ESPADA@SENATE.STATE.NY.US, MENDEZ@SENATE.STATE.NY.US,
> SANTIAGO@SENATE.STATE.NY.US, brodskr@assembly.state.ny.us,
> tonkop@assembly.state.ny.us, vanna@assembly.state.ny.us,
> lentolj@ assembly.state.ny.us, speaker@ assembly.state.ny.us,
> gov.pataki@chamber.state.ny.us
> CC: BASTIAN.ROBERT@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV, RUBIN.ALAN@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV,
> WALKER.JOHN@epamail.epa.gov, john.baker@gsa.gov
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10
>
> "Trust Us, We're Experts", said EPA's Robert Bastian, Alan Rubin, and=20
> John Walker. Congress said OK, but made its intent concerning the=20
> environment very clear, "Under RCRA solid waste do not cease to be solid=20
> waste simply because they are being used, re-used, recycled or reclaimed. =20
> Rather, use, re-use, recycling, resource recovery and reclamation are ways o=
> f=20
> managing solid waste, which, if properly conducted, can avoid environmental=20
> hazards, protect scarce land supply, and reduce the nation's reliance on=20
> foreign energy and materials ---Congress' "Overriding concern" --elimination=
> =20
> of "the last remaining loophole" in environmental regulation" (H.R.Rep.at 4)=
> .
>
> Well, maybe everyone didn't get the word. According to a memo from EPA'=
> s=20
> Robert E. Lee to EPA's John Walker and Bob Bastian, dated Oct. 17, 1994, th=
> e=20
> public relations campaign funding for the WEF would come from the EPA 104=20
> grant program which was restricted to "...establish national programs for th=
> e=20
> prevention,
> reduction, and elimination of pollution..." However, "Areas that we had=20
> considered using these funds include: 1. Odor Control Manual, 2. Sludge=20
> Horror Stories, 3. Biosolids Technical Assessment, 4. Management of Class B=
> ,=20
> 5. Arid Lands, 6. PCB's in Biosolids...What about one with a water shed=20
> twist....Ways to utilize biosolids in water sheds to mitigate other=20
> environmental problems...Bob B. maybe we should put one or some $ in for the=
> =20
> wetlands work in watersheds also."=20
>
> This memo appear to be the authority Walker and Bastian used to create their=
> =20
> debunking program within the EPA/WEF partnership. By this time of course, EP=
> A=20
> had hooked a group of scientists and the National Academy of Science (NAS)=20
> into the debunking program. From 1993 to 1996, the NAS Committee ate up a=20
> lot of public money trying to figure out how to explain to the public that=20
> the use of sewage sludge was safe when used for growing food crops.
> =20
> The NAS Committee was up front about its purpose as it explains: "It is=
> =20
> hoped that this report will be particularly useful to food processors,=20
> states, and municipalities in assessing the use of treated municipal=20
> wastewater and sludge in producing crops for human consumption." (p. viii)
>
> The last paragraph in the NAS report was a red flag concerning the=20
> nature of the science behind EPA's sludge disposal policy: "The suite of=20
> existing federal regulations, available avenues for additional state and=20
> local regulatory actions, and private sector forces appear adequate to allow=
> ,=20
> with time and education, the development of safe beneficial reuse of=20
> reclaimed wastewater and sludge." (p. 172)
>
> Everyone in the government didn't sign off on the sludge dumping policy=
> =20
> because, Number 14 on the EPA list to debunk is, "BLM (Federal Bureau of=20
> Land Management) policy opposing use of biosolids on Federal lands: equating=
> =20
> its use to hazardous waste dumping and landfilling raising SUPERFUND=20
> liability concerns."=20
>
> Michael Baram, a professor of public health law at the Boston University=20
> School of Public Health, one of the 14 authors of the report, also disagrees=
> =20
> with the reports conclusion, not for the misstatements of facts on the=20
> federal regulations or law,
> but for the infectious disease aspects.
>
> Baram's statement of public dissent is quoted by Joel Bleifuss in the=20
> June 10, 1996 edition of IN THESE TIMES: "Having served on the NAS [the=20
> National Academy of Sciences, which in turn operates the National Research=20
> Council], which authored the report, I would not want EPA-approved sludge=20
> applied to land in my community nor to land within the watershed of my water=
> =20
> supply system. Nor would I want to=20
> purchase or consume sludge-grown foods or foods containing sludge-grown=20
> ingredients. ... [Sludge] poses risks to the health of persons who would be=
> =20
> exposed to it. ...The EPA regulation which permits farmland application of=20
> treated sludge (Part 503) does not prevent these risks."=20
>
> Baram also puts the NAS Report in perspective. "You can just look to=20
> see who's paying for all this, and you get a pretty good idea of the vested=20
> interest involved."
> Furthermore, according to Baram, "It's a main weakness of the report that=20
> it did not probe sufficiently into the infectious disease aspects... We spen=
> t=20
> most of our time just determining if the EPA used risk-analysis that met=20
> professional standards."
>
> Not only that, "But the trouble is," according to Baram, "that there=20
> were many (different topics of concern) they didn't include in the=20
> risk-analysis. They only picked a subset of things to study and they didn't=
> =20
> do risk-analysis of infectious disease organisms," he says. (Baram is quote=
> d=20
> from a Boulder Weekly article, As the Topsoil Turns, by Greg Campbell, May=20
> 2, 1996. Baram's statement of public dissent
> was also quoted in the article)
>
> The NAS claims that based on its scientific study, sludge use on crops=
> =20
> is safe. Yet, the NAS Committee did not review the one human health study=20
> (Municipal Sewage Sludge Application on Ohio Farms: Health Effects) publishe=
> d=20
> in, Environmental Research 38, pp. 332-359, 1985. It was funded by the EPA=20
> and used by the EPA as the ultimate proof of the safety of sludge.
>
> The NAS Report quoted an abstract by a third party and the study is=20
> re-titled, Demonstration of Acceptable Systems for Land Disposal of Sewage=20
> Sludge.=20
>
> The NAS Report also failed to reveal the Ohio study's finding that,=20
> "There have been no previous reported studies of the human health effect of=20
> land application of treated municipal sewage sludge."
>
> Moreover, it would appear that the NAS writer failed to read beyond the=20
> sixth paragraph of Brown's abstract. Brown stated, in the seventh paragraph=
> =20
> of the abstract,=20
> "Significantly higher fecal Cd (cadmium) concentrations in cattle, and=20
> significantly higher Cd and Pb (lead) accumulations were observed in kidney=20
> tissues of calves
> grazing on sludge-amended pastures."
>
> Not only that, but the Ohio Study documented a (WHO. 1981) study,=20
> "....of Salmonella in cattle grazing on sludge amended pastures in=20
> Switzerland (which) have indicated a positive association and a cycle of=20
> infection from humans to
> sludge to animals to humans."
>
> In the past, the EPA's main concern with toxic metals has been Cadmium=
> ,=20
> a poison which can be taken up by leafy plants grown on sludge amended soils=
> =20
> such as tobacco which can accumulate up to 10 times the soil level of Cadmiu=
> m=20
> in the leaves. Inhaling cadmium dust and fumes is very hazardous and will=20
> produce pulmonary edema. It can cause death or delayed death from acute=20
> renal (kidney) failure. Cadmium also concentrates in the liver and kidney o=
> f=20
> animals. This could be a major concern for people who eat liver.
>
> The authors of the "Ohio" study made it very clear the study was not t=
> o=20
> be used in the manner the EPA and NAS are now using it. In the actual=20
> abstract of the study, the researchers state, "The absence of observed human=
> =20
> or animal health effects resulting from sludge application in this study of=20
> Ohio farms was associated with low sludge application rates which were in=20
> accordance with Ohio and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines.=20
> (Not current part 503 guidelines) Caution should be exercised in using these=
> =20
> data to predict health risks associated with sludges
> containing higher levels of disease agents and with higher sludge applicatio=
> n=20
> rates and larger acreages treated per farm than used in this study."
>
> The NAS Committee admitted that it had no scientific idea how to deal=20
> with pathogens in sludge when it found, "Many of the variables associated=20
> with the transmission of infectious disease from wastewater and sludge are=20
> either not well
> understood or are unpredictable." (p. 93-94)
>
> The NAS Report notes that the parasites are "quite resistant to chemica=
> l=20
> and physical disinfection" (p. 96). Yet, Salmonella, according to the EPA,=
> =20
> is subject to
> growth within 14 hours after the sludge leaves the treatment plant, even if=20
> it is Class A sludge.
> =20
> Furthermore, the NAS Report acknowledges cyanobacteria (blue-green=20
> algae) is found on sludge amended soil and that it reduces nitrogen fixation=
> =20
> (p. 77). They do not acknowledge that cyanobacteria has been reclassified a=
> s=20
> the parasite, Cyclospora, and the first infectious disease outbreak from=20
> Cyclospora was reported in 1990.
>
> Yet, the NAS "Study" assures the public that Coxsackie Viruses and=20
> Echoviruses in sludge only cause "flu-like" symptoms. However, according to=
> =20
> Tabor's Cylopedic Medical Dictionary, the (sixty species `EPA') of the two=20
> viruses can also cause inflammation of the heart, spinal cord and brain.
>
> The NAS Report also acknowledged a major problem behind the scientific =20
> assumptions, "There are instances in sludge processing, such as composting,=20
> in which the coliform levels cannot be satisfactorily reduced even though=20
> there is reason to believe that the sanitary quality of the material is=20
> otherwise acceptable (EPA, 1992b; Skanavis and Yanko, 1994)....Many of the=20
> parasites of concern exist in
> the encysted stage outside of the human or animal intestinal track, and are=20
> quite resistant to chemical and physical disinfection in this form." (p. 94=
> )
>
> The EPA's own research has documented the danger to humans and animals=20
> from the pollutants in sludge. Besides toxic heavy metal, by 1989 the EPA=20
> had established a primary list of 25 pathogens (family groups) in sewage=20
> sludge which can cause serious damage. Five pathogens are bacteria, nine ar=
> e=20
> viruses, five are helminths, Five are protozoans and one is a fungi. Most o=
> f=20
> these pathogens can be very deadly to humans and animals, the others will=20
> only make you wish you were dead.
>
> The bacteria Campylobacter jejuni and Escherichia primarily cause a=20
> relative mild case of diarrhea, while Salmonella, shigetla and Vibrio=20
> cholerae can lead to death.
> The nine listed viruses are a little misleading, 1) Entroviruses or=20
> Picornaviruses actually includes 152 species and includes three of the liste=
> d=20
> viruses, many will cause pneumonia, 2) Poliovirus (3 species) causes=20
> inflammation of the grey matter of the spinal cord, 3) Coxsackievirus A (23=20
> species), B (6 species) mostly mild but can cause inflammation of heart in=20
> newborns, 4) Echovirus (31 species) primarily causes inflammation of the=20
> heart, spinal cord & brain, 5) Hepatitis A virus, can cause death , 6)=20
> Norwalk viruses, 7) Norwalk like viruses, mostly diseases of the=20
> gastrointestinal tract, 8) Reovirus, unknown, 9) Rotavirus, acute=20
> gastroenteritis.
>
> The five Helminths actually produce different worms such as hookworms,=
> =20
> tapeworms and nematode worms. In humans, the nematode worms may end up in=20
> the brain, retina vessels, liver, lung and heart. The larve cause hemorrhage=
> ,
> inflammation, necrosis in these tissues. This causes myocarditis,=20
> endophthalmitis, epilepsy or encephalitis. The five Protozoans; 1) Toxoplasm=
> a=20
> gondii, causes pneumonitis, hepatitis and encephalitis, 2) Balantidium, is=20
> mild, 3) Entamoeba histolyca, forms liver abscess, 4) Giardia lambia, is the=
> =20
> cause of severe intestinal problems, 5) Cryptosporidium, causes explosive=20
> diarrhea and cramps, it was
> first described in humans in 1976.
>
> The one fungi considered is Aspergillus, it causes inflamed tissues in=
> =20
> bronchi, lungs, aural canal, skin and membranes of the eye, nose or urethra.=
> =20
> It may also produce mycotic nodules in the lungs, liver, kidney and other=20
> organs
> (FR 54-P.5829 & Tabor's Cylopedic Medical Dictionary).
>
> It appears that in spite of EPA claims to the contrary not only is it=20
> not safe to harvest any food or feed crops 30 days after sludge has been=20
> used, it's not safe to grow crops on pollutant contaminated soil a year afte=
> r=20
> sludge has been applied.
> =20
> According to D. Strauch, who is with the Institute of Animal Medicine=
> =20
> and Hygiene, University of Hohenhiem, Salmonella has survived in forest=20
> stands between 424 and 820 days. Although the EPA claims that any one of=20
> the six alternatives for Class A pathogen reduction will prevent regrowth of=
> =20
> Salmonella, an EPA- sponsored survey of distribution and marketed sludges in=
> =20
> the U. S. (Yanko 1987) found that Salmonella was often present in=20
> PFRP-treated sludges and sludge products (13) (high- temperature composting,=
> =20
> heat-drying, heat treatment, and thermophilic aerobic digestion). The=20
> conclusion of the author was that the occurrence of pathogenic bacteria in=20
> distributed and marketed sludge products represented a potential health=20
> hazard, but the extent of the health risk was unknown.=20
>
> In 1994, Constantine Skanavis and William Yanko conducted a study of=20
> composted sewage sludge based soil amendments for potential risks of=20
> salmonellosis. They analyzed samples of composted sewage sludge, amendment=20
> materials added to the compost (bulking agents such as aged redwood, fir=20
> bark, redwood chips, rice hulls, and sawdust) and four bagged commercial=20
> sludge soil conditioner products representing different blends of materials=20
> for home garden use. These bagged products were designated Product A=20
> (recycled compost), Product B (made with rice hulls), Product C (made with=20
> wood chips) and Product D (made by modifying sludge with the addition of the=
> =20
> company's proprietary formulation).
>
> All samples were tested for total and fecal coliforms and the presence=20
> of Salmonella. The average total and fecal coliform concentrations were=20
> significantly lower in the composted sludge compared to the four=20
> compost-based products.
>
> Although there were no significant differences in total and fecal coliform=20
> concentrations among products A, B, and C, the average total and fecal=20
> concentrations in Product D were significantly higher than in A,B,C products=
> =20
> and the bulking agents. Laboratory tests detected salmonella in the compost-=
> =20
> based products but not in the compost material used to make the products.=20
> Thirty-six percent of Product D samples were positive for Salmonella. Produc=
> t=20
> D also contained the highest average concentration of Salmonella. Product A=20
> was second with 27 percent and Products B and C were tied with 22 percents o=
> f=20
> the samples positive for Salmonella. Because Salmonella was detected in the=20
> sludge products but not in the compost, the authors retested (using another=20
> testing procedure) four samples that had been negative for Salmonella.=20
> Retesting resulted in detection of Salmonella in 2 of the 4 compost samples.=
> =20
> The authors conclude that "compost-based products could, in specific=20
> situations,
> represent a source of Salmonella infection. This study, therefore, points to=
> =20
> the need for intensive study of the factors associated with Salmonella spp.=20
> regrowth." (p. 9)
>
> Some pathogens have even developed resistance to time- tested controls=
> =20
> such as heat and refrigeration. Several of the alternatives to reduce=20
> pathogens in sludge products use heat at temperatures of 55 C and above to=20
> achieve Class A status. However, according to the article "Pathogen=20
> Destruction and Biosolids Composting" in Biocycle of June of 1996, "There is=
> =20
> some evidence that coliforms and Salmonella sp. can survive prolonged=20
> exposure to temperatures of 55 C." They cite a study done by Droffner and=20
> Brinton (1995) using DNA gene probes, where they detected E. coli and=20
> Salmonella sp. in samples collected from an in-vessel composting facility=20
> after the first 15 days of active composting at a temperature above 55 C. In=
> =20
> Table 5-4 Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens in A Plain English Guide to=20
> the EPA Part 503 Biosolids Rule, composting time and temperature requirement=
> s=20
> for within-vessel composting method was 55 C or higher for three days! =20
> Droffner and Brinton found that it took 56 days and 90 days for the densitie=
> s=20
> of Salmonella sp. and E. Coli, respectively, to decline below the detection=20
> limit...These investigators also "cite evidence of mutant strains of E. coli=
> =20
> and Salmonella sp. resistant to thermal environments in composting." (p. 68)
>
> According to microbiologists, some bacteria form an endospore, a cell=20
> type developed from the vegetative bacterial cell through a sequence of=20
> morphological changes. Although the vegetative cell of bacteria is usually=20
> killed by heat and disinfectant, the endospore is resistant to agents that=20
> kill the vegetative cell (heating, drying, freezing, chemicals, and=20
> radiation). Nester, Roberts, Pearsall and
> McCarthy (1978) in their text Microbiology point out the threat that=20
> endospores present. They say: Endospores represent the most resistant form=20
> of life known; they tolerate extremes of heat and dryness, the presence of=20
> disinfectants, and radiation. Some members of Bacillus and Clostridium
> play=20=
> a=20
> role in fixing atmospheric nitrogen and others cause serious infectious=20
> diseases. Thermophilic strains of Bacillus can grow at temperatures above 70=
> =20
> C (158 F) (p. 260)
>
> Linne and Ringsrud (1979) in their text Basic Techniques for the Medica=
> l=20
> Laboratory also point out how spores, as highly resistant forms of bacteria,=
> =20
> pose a great problem in sterilization. They state that certain spores have=20
> been known to survive 16 hours of boiling. (p. 452)
>
> It has been recognized in Germany, at least since D. Strauch published=20
> his paper in 1991, that" most pathogenic agents can survive the treatment=20
> process" and the sewage treatment process causes some of the pathogenic=20
> disease organisms to be absorbed or enclosed in faecal particles during the=20
> treatment process. "Therefore," according to Strauch, "sewage sludge is=20
> rightly described as a concentration of pathogens."
>
> In a personal interview with scientist David Lewis of the EPA, who is a=
> =20
> whistleblower, EPA's nondetection phenomenon for pathogens was explained a=20
> little better. He said, "The problem of pathogen detection in sludge is=
> =20
> that the sewage treatment process changes the outside crust of the aggregate=
> s=20
> in sludge and only the pathogens on the outside of the aggregates are=20
> measured by standard tests." He says that most of the microbes are trapped=20
> inside the aggregates. When ultrasound was used to break open the aggregate=
> s=20
> of sludge the trapped microbes were revealed. In effect, it appears that the=
> =20
> treatment processes hide most of the pathogens rather than destroying them.
>
> When John Walker first reported the "regrowth problem in 1973, scientists at=
> =20
> the =20
> Institute for Environmental Science, Murdoch University Murdoch 6150=20
> Australia, were still duplicating the study in 1997.=20
>
> They say, "In a soil amendment trial biosolids were mixed with sandy soil an=
> d=20
> monitored for 37 weeks. In two storage trials biosolids were stored in piles=
> =20
> 1m high and monitored for <60 weeks. Included in the monitoring programme=20
> were tests to determine the concentrations of faecal coliforms, faecal=20
> streptococci and salmonellae. In both the soil amendment trials and biosolid=
> s=20
> storage trials, concentrations of indicator organisms and salmonellae=20
> decreased through an extended hot, dry summer period. Although these=20
> organisms were not detected in the majority of samples taken during the=20
> summer, repopulation of faecal coliforms and salmonellae occurred in the=20
> trials following rainfall at the beginning of the winter. In the case of one=
> =20
> of the storage trials repopulation occurred following a period of 50 weeks=20
> when salmonellae and faecal coliforms were not detected. When repopulation=20
> occurred, faecal coliform concentrations increased to higher than those at=20
> the beginning of the trials. These results suggest that faecal coliforms and=
> =20
> salmonellae were at undetectable concentrations through the summer period bu=
> t=20
> were able to grow when provided with favourable conditions. From this limite=
> d=20
> trial it was concluded that soil amended with biosolids could not be=20
> considered free from pathogens for at least one year following amendment." =20
> (Water Science and Technology Vol 35 No 11-12 pp 269275 =A9 IWA Publishing 1=
> 997=20
> )
>
> Straub, Pepper and Gerba say that the list of pathogens are not constan=
> t=20
> but keep changing: As advances in analytical techniques and changes in=20
> society have occurred, new pathogens are recognized and the significance of=
> =20
> well-known ones change.=20
> Microorganisms are subject to mutation and evolution, allowing for=20
> adaptation to changes in the environment. In addition, many pathogens are=20
> viable but nonculturable
> by current techniques (Rozak and Colwell 1987), and actual concentrations i=
> n=20
> sludge are probably underestimated.(p. 58)
> They add further: Thus, no assessment of the risks associated with the
> land application of sewage sludge can ever be considered complete when=20
> dealing with microorganisms. As new agents are discovered and a greater=20
> understanding of their ecology is developed, we must be willing to reevaluat=
> e=20
> previous assumptions. (p. 58)
>
> The High Road
> By January 1998, in the draft Statement Summary requesting additional=20
> funding, Bastian, Rubin and Walker's boss, Perciasepe wrote Harman about how=
> =20
> Al Rubin and John Walker Plan to take the high road on the USDA National=20
> Organics Rule:
> * With the Statement that the rule is a marketing rule
> and is not risk based;
> * That the rule should be science based--otherwise using
> raw manures and composts without regulation or
> guidance can and is causing diseases;
> * That the criteria used for choosing what is acceptable
> for use to produce organic grown food should be
> science based;
> * That the rule should be subject to Peer Review
> * And that biosolids are safe for use and are highly
> regulated.
>
> Persiacepe, Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Water, wrote=
> =20
> in two confidential January 1998 draft statements (original & final) that=20
> there hasn't been any monitoring or compliance enforcement. In these two=20
> drafts, Persiacepe revealed that
> EPA has never adequately monitored or enforced the Part 503 regulation. =20
> Perciasepe admits in a statement to Steven Harman, Assistant Administrator=20
> for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, that "Our limited biosolids=20
> staffing has crippled our ability to oversee the quality of biosolids being=20
> land applied and to assure that the regulations governing land application=20
> are properly enforced."
>
> In the draft statement, Perciasepe requested support from Harman in=20
> "implementing a strategy for biosolids compliance and enforcement; and=20
> providing training for persons involved with biosolids inspections;=20
> enforcement; compliance assistance; and technical assistance."=20
>
> These statements acknowledged what many people in and out of government=
> =20
> already knew, the EPA has not overseen the safety of sludge disposal. Since=20
> States with the exception of Utah have not accepted delegation of Part 503,=20
> the oversight
> and compliance for land application of sewage sludge is an EPA problem to=20
> explain away.
>
> In Perciasepe's Statement to Harman, he requested financial assistance=20
> in excess of $3,780,000 above his budget for two years. The two year request=
> =20
> for funding included: 1) Research and Technical Support ($1.6 Million), 2)=20
> Stakeholders Partnership with AMSA and WEF ($500 thousand), 3) Biosolids=20
> Quality Survey ($325 thousand), 4) Biosolids Data Management System ($350=20
> thousand), 5) Code of Good Practice and Third Party Verification ($200=20
> thousand), 6) Booklet Explaining Quality Control ($80 thousand), 7) Expand=20
> Training ($130 thousand), 8) Enhance Oversight and Compliance ($150 thousand=
> )=20
> and 9) Technical Support for Pathogens & Vector Attraction Equivalency=20
> Committee ($50 thousand) and the Incidence Response Team
> ($120 thousand).
>
> According to the budget outlay request there still would not be adequat=
> e=20
> compliance and oversight. Compliance and oversight was only going to cost=20
> $100 thousand the first year and $50 thousand the second year. The Incidenc=
> e=20
> and Response Team (debunking group) was cheap at $60 thousand a year. This=20
> budget request was just another way to fund the public relations program.
>
> A closer examination of Perciasepe's draft statements reveals the real=20
> reason for the additional outlay of money is to counteract the growing=20
> opposition of the public to
> biosolids use. Perciasepe wrote:
> Because the public perceives that risks are high, we
> need to reinvest in biosolids to address the public's
> concerns. Specifically, the public believes that
> biosolids qualities are poor, that the science behind
> the rule is suspect, that emerging potential problems
> with the use of biosolids are equivalent to a new "Love
> canal," and finally that EPA does not know what is going
> on.
>
> He added further that, "the public's poor perception of environmentally=
> =20
> sound land use practices is severely impacting EPA's ability to successfully=
> =20
> implement the
> beneficial use policy. The poor public perception may force municipalities=20
> to spend unnecessary expenses to manage biosolids."
>
> Perciasepe uses the same tired old line used by most regulatory agencie=
> s=20
> who fail to fulfill their assigned functions-- we don't have enough money, o=
> r=20
> enough people, or enough power to do the job. So, they receive more taxpayer=
> =20
> dollars to hire more people and get more power to cover up their misdeeds. =20
> It is evident from Perciasepe's Statement, the real purpose of the request=20
> for over 2 million dollars annually was to cover up the brewing scandal CNN=20
> exposed. He has a right to be concerned with public perception. As was=20
> pointed out by Powell Tate, this is a major problem for the EPA/WEF=20
> partnership.
>
> However, the real problem is not public perception, it is the damage=20
> done to the public's health and the environment.=1A=20
>
> Jim Bynum
> PO Box 34475
> N. Kansas City, Mo. 64116
>
> --part1_2f.158e1ea9.283db3a1_boundary--
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> From: "Cyndy Ross" <cynross@tir.com>
> To: "Steve Mitrione" <smitrione@earthlink.net>,
> "community_garden@mallorn" <community_garden@mallorn.com>
> Subject: Re: [cg] Cardboard
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:00:11 -0400
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> We, too, have an invasion of quack grass. Unfortunately, using cardboard in
> a garden will take away your "organic" status (not to mention, take a toll
> on your health) due to the chemicals & glue used during its manufacturing
> process. We do plan on using cardboard in the flower beds far enough away
> from our edible gardens which should not pose a hindrance for our organic
> status. In the edible gardens we are using a heavy layer of wood chips in
> the paths (more nitrogen needs to be added to the veggie gardens as the wood
> chips rob this element from those plants who need it). On the plots
> themselves we mulch heavily with either leaves or grass clippings (they're
> free & easily obtained -- a double bonus in my book ;-) ). Heavy mulch
> seems to do the trick in keeping weeds & quack grass at bay.
>
> Soil, just as healthy humans ward off illnesses, will contain less weeds if
> it is healthy to the point of "black gold" humus. By the way, did you know
> that each weed present in the soil is indicative of certain element(s)
> present, missing, or not in readily available form for the plants to use?
>
> Happy gardening!
>
> Peace Be With You,
> Cyndy Ross, Chairperson
> SLLC Organic Community Garden
> Sylvan Lake Lutheran Church
> 1452 Avondale St
> Sylvan Lake, MI 48320
>
> Zone 6A
> cynross@tir.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Mitrione" <smitrione@earthlink.net>
> To: <community_garden@mallorn.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 11:36 AM
> Subject: [cg] Cardboard
>
>
>> I'm considering using cardboard for weed suppression in an organic
>> vegetable garden (the quackgrass is out of control). A friend is
>> concerned about toxic compounds in the cardboard. Anyone have any
>> knowledge about the safety of using cardboard for weed suppression?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> community_garden maillist - community_garden@mallorn.com
>> https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
>>
>
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> community_garden maillist - community_garden@mallorn.com
> https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
>
>
> End of community_garden Digest
Where would you look to find out what each weed says about soil properties,
I think this would be an interesting document.
Chris in Philadelphia
_______________________________________________
community_garden maillist - community_garden@mallorn.com
https://secure.mallorn.com/mailman/listinfo/community_garden
