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
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: community_garden digest, Vol 1 #714 - 3 msgs

  • Subject: [cg] Re: community_garden digest, Vol 1 #714 - 3 msgs
  • From: Chris Hibbard <chibbard@pobox.upenn.edu>
  • 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
> 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
> 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

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index