Sludge Watch ==> Fecal Folly - Toronto Flings its Filth over the Fence

maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca
Fri Jun 2 11:28:26 EDT 2006

Previous message: Sludge Watch ==> Canada - new tests find poisons in children's blood, urine
Next message: Sludge Watch ==> Toronto - City weighs its options in search of landfill
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sludgewatch Admin

This is a very well written editorial, capturing many of the nuances of the
sludge debate here in Southern Ontario.

Urban dwellers have been cruelly misled by the attractive myth that their
toilet tailings were cheerfully ‘recycled’ to farm lands. The ugly truth is
that few farmers take Toronto sludge. Less than 5 % of Toronto sludge is
spread on fields. Those few farmers who take it often refuse to put it on
lands that they own…only on fields they work for absentee or offshore
owners. And this year Ontario farmers, who were never asked if they wanted
sludge, are boycotting sludge use altogether. Sludge trucks went for a one
hour drive, then a two, three…now a six hour drive …. looking for places
willing to take Toronto sludge.

Over the past 10 years public and politicians alike have been fed a
self-serving fairy tale - that we can take toxic liquid industrial wastes
from the sewers, mix them with excrement, and expect a high quality
fertilizer to result. This is a cynical lie. Most of the public are
unaware that industries discharge industrial wastes to the sewers…Toronto
has pesticide companies, paper mills, plating companies, pharmaceutical
manufacturers, paint stores, gas stations - all kinds of industries
discharging to the sewers.

It is absurd to consider these toxins it an agricultural boon. The “Toxic
Sludge is Good For You” slogan has failed to convince farmers and has now
failed to charm even venal landfill companies. Toronto sludge is too stinky
for the dump. And the suggestion that sludge is an aid in the digestion of
trash is to ignore that it helps move heavy metals and toxins into the
leachate at the landfill.
But Torontonians are still being told that their toxic toilet sludge is an
enchanting recycling opportunity.

Urban ‘greenies’ have grown into urban homeowners and many now trade on
their green coloration to achieve a meaner end: to visit the toxic detritus
of their urban lifestyle on rural residents. They want to protect their
airshed from even the most minuscule insult, and do so by pushing the City
to smear rural communities with their fecal/industrial wastes. Or send the
foul compounds wafting through Michigan border towns and suburban
subdivisions near the landfill.
Toronto Public Works staff and Toronto politicians sat idly by as Toronto’s
Keele Valley landfill filled up and closed. They did not do the work to
acquire another landfill so there was no place to put Toronto trash.

Then Toronto bowed to a few vocal Toronto denizens who pestered them to
close the incinerator. A brand new state of the art energy from sludge
facility would have made for a reliable and affordable waste management
initiative. It would have help meet Kyoto greenhouse objectives through
utilization of methane, and stopped to movement of thousands of tonnes of
lead, arsenic, mercury and cadmium into the countryside. Instead Toronto
spent over $200 million to send sludge to an unwilling rural hinterland in
both dewatered and pelletized forms. Sludge was sent to places that didn’t
want it, and now won’t take it. But meanwhile the NIMBY greenies agitated to
close and dismantle the sludge incinerator that provided the only back up to
their pricey hair-brained farm sludge program. At every step Toronto
counted on flinging their filth over the fence to someone else’s backyard.

Now the neighbours are flinging it back. First the farmers, then the
landfill, and soon the whole US border may close to Southern Ontario sludge.

The whole premise was wrong. It is not ‘green’ to badger Toronto public
officials to dispense their toxified toilet wastes into other communities.
It is simply mean-spirited filthy folly.
Its time for Toronto to step up and deal with their own wastes in a
responsible fashion.

There are two stories that follow the editorial…looking at the elevated
burden of toxic chemicals in Canadian children. Fancy that…
……………………………………………
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060602.ESLUDGE02/TPStory/Comment

Toronto Globe and Mail
Canada

June 2, 2006
Editorial

Toronto and its sludge
Toronto has an unsavoury problem.
As of Aug. 1, a once-welcoming Michigan landfill site will bar the gates to
all sewage sludge (treated human waste), both imported and the good ol'
American kind. Apparently there were some "outstanding odour issues." The
company that owns the landfill wants permission to expand, and didn't want
to irk the neighbours any more than necessary.
Two months is not a long time to find a home for 13 to 15 trucks each day of
sewage sludge. And it is rather unseemly to beg one's neighbours for the use
of their backyard. It also tends to drive up the price.
A malicious person might reply that it serves Toronto right for failing to
deal with its own waste. While the city has become proficient at recycling,
it still sends 3.6 million tonnes a year of waste (15 per cent of that is
sewage sludge) to Michigan. Is there no room in Ontario's one million square
kilometres? Apparently not. When a tender call was issued two years ago for
emergency landfill space in Ontario in case Michigan should close its border
as it had threatened to do, the call produced not a single positive reply.
At bottom, the problem is one of attitude. Somehow, disposing of waste has
become morally freighted. To bury is wrong; to burn is wrong; to recycle or
reuse is good. Meanwhile, more than 100 trucks a day drive down the highway
to Michigan -- out of sight, out of mind.
It has been a nice run, and cheap, but it's coming to an end. Fast. Shelley
Carroll, Toronto's works committee chairwoman, is remarkably rosy about it,
saying that if the city's sludge load is divided into five, the resulting
amounts should not burden Ontario dumps. The sludge will be welcomed, she
says, because it creates a chemical reaction that breaks down other waste
and extends the life of landfills. Besides, other states besides Michigan
may have space.
Nonetheless, she won't talk about what sites are possible; the Ontario
government has asked the city to keep them hush-hush. Too explosive. Is it
too much to hope that Toronto's sludge crisis will force an open, honest
examination of burying and burning waste close to home, before Michigan bars
the door to all garbage from southern Ontario?

……………………………………
Sludgewatch Admin:
Poisoning ourselves and our children – how do banned chemicals get into the
bodies of our children…? Well, landfill leachate..containing poisons and
persticides that have been banned for decades are tipped into sewage
treatment plants and end up in the sludge ‘fertilizer’ on dairy pastures.
That is one way.
Recycle your toxic poisons into the food chain through sludge.
/////////////////////////////////////////
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060602.TOXIC02/TPStory/Environment
Toxic cocktail found in children
Study discovers wide exposure to host of pollutants
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
Amy Robertson has gone to great pains to avoid exposing her children to
pesticides and other potentially harmful chemicals. She operated a certified
organic farm for seven years, and she shuns non-stick cookware and harsh
household cleaning products.
So the results of a recent batch of tests came as something of a shock. Ms.
Robertson, who lives in Vancouver, found that she and her two children
carried a veritable cocktail of manufactured carcinogens, hormone disruptors
and neurotoxins in their bodies, a total of about 30 each. There were traces
of computer flame retardants, bits of the complicated molecules used to make
non-stick pans, and even PCBs, an industrial chemical so dangerous it was
banned as a health hazard nearly 30 years ago.
Ms. Robertson says she feels as if harmful chemicals, substances with which
she never consented to come into contact, are trespassing on herself and her
children. "It's really appalling. Our toxicity levels far exceeded anything
I could imagine," she said.
Ms. Robertson was a participant in an unusual research project. A group of
13 Canadian parents, their children and, in one case, a grandparent, agreed
to have their blood and urine subjected to a battery of tests, checking for
the presence of 68 potentially dangerous chemicals. The analytical sleuthing
was undertaken by Environmental Defence, a Toronto conservation
organization, to determine how the level of pollutants varied between
children and their parents.
One of the project's findings: Children have pervasive exposures to
pollutants, with higher concentrations of some contaminants than adults,
particularly for chemicals used in many common consumer products. The
average child carried a total of 23 different contaminants.
An Environmental Defence spokesman said the finding of widespread chemical
residues in children indicates Health Canada hasn't been aggressive enough
protecting the public from pollutants.
"What kind of a government allows the children of the country to be
contaminated in this way?," said Rick Smith, Environmental Defence executive
director. "Surely, we have a right as parents to demand some level of
security for our children as they grow and develop."
The group issued a report, called Polluted Children, Toxic Nation, outlining
the findings of its research project yesterday.
It is not known if the pollutant levels, typically at around a part per
billion in their bodies for contaminants, represents a health hazard.
An official at Health Canada said the levels of individual chemicals found
were safe, but he conceded that health regulators don't know whether the
full cocktail of pollutants to which people are exposed is a risk because no
one actually tests contaminants in this way. Typically, pollutants are
checked for health effects one at a time, not in mixtures.
"Every jurisdiction everywhere around the world is struggling to deal with
the mixtures issue and the truth is that all jurisdictions and science today
is struggling to answer that question," said Paul Glover, head of Health
Canada's safe-environment program.
The list of synthetic substances in those tested was a veritable cornucopia
of chemicals in modern life, with a total of 46 different substances found.
On average, adults did have more extensive chemical burdens than children,
carrying 32 chemicals each -- a finding that might be expected, given that
parents had been alive longer and grew up during an era of laxer pollution
controls.
The study also found PCBs, and pesticides such as DDT, both now banned, in
all of those tested. The children were born years after restrictions for the
two chemicals came into effect, highlighting both the persistence of these
pollutants and their ability to pass from one generation to the next.
The median concentration of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in the children
was about twice the level of adults. These flame-retardant chemicals have
been widely used in Canada during recent decades in computers and
mattresses. Recent research has linked exposures to attention deficit and
hyperactivity in laboratory animals.
Children also had higher burdens than adults of one chemical used to make
Teflon pans and another that has been phased out of Scotchgard, the stain
repellant. These chemicals are a concern because they've been linked to
cancer, decreased pituitary gland size and death in laboratory animals.
The report said that given the relatively small number of people tested, the
results shouldn't be taken as a representative sample of levels of these
chemicals in Canadians.
Health Canada and Statistics Canada plan a more extensive survey of the
contaminants of the population this fall. The two departments plan to test
about 5,000 people over a two-year period.
Trespassers in humans
Chemicals detected in volunteers, median concentrations, in parts per
billion
PBDEs: Flame retardants used in mattresses and electronics, which are
powerful thyroid hormone disrupters
Adults: 0.042
Children: 0.118
PFCs: Chemicals used in non-stick, stain-resistant coatings linked to cancer
and animal deaths
Adults: 17.345
Children: 17.329
PCBs: Used in industrial equipment, banned in 1977, linked to cancer, birth
defects and brain damage
Adults: 1.934
Children: 0.574
OCPs: Pesticides, such as DDT, linked to hormone disruption
Adults: 0.787
Children: 0.286
SOURCE: TOXICNATION.CA

…………………………………………………
Globe and Mail
June 2, 2006
Editorial

Watchdog group conducted study
Jun. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
NANCY J. WHITE
LIFE WRITER

Ada Dowler-Cohen, age 10, wasn't shocked when she saw the list of poisonous
substances in her body: 18 carcinogens, 14 chemicals that disrupt hormones,
19 that affect reproduction and development and 9 toxic to the brain and
nervous system.
Rather, the girl was angry.
"There are chemicals in my blood that have been banned since 1977," says the
Toronto Grade 5 student. "How fair is that?"
Blood and urine samples showed that Ada, an avid swimmer, badminton player
and music lover, was carrying around traces of nine types of PCBs, the
highly toxic chemicals banned nearly 30 years ago, as well as substances
used in pesticides, flame retardants, stain repellents and fuel additives.
"I'm dismayed at the extent of heavy metals that showed up in her," says the
girl's mother, Barri Cohen. "And I'm even more dismayed that she has higher
levels than I do in some chemicals."
Ada and her mother are part of a study, Polluted Children, Toxic Nation,
released yesterday by Environmental Defence. The Toronto watchdog group had
five Canadian families — six adults and seven children — tested for 68 toxic
chemicals. On average, they found 32 of the chemicals in each parent and 23
in each child.
While the parents tended to have more exposures and higher concentrations of
the chemicals, the youngsters as a group were more polluted with several
chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). It's the chemical used
in non-stick coatings on cookware and as a stain repellent on clothing,
carpets and upholstery. It's a suspected carcinogen.
The children also showed a higher median concentration for the group of
chemicals widely used as flame retardants, polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs). They're commonly used in mattresses, upholstered furniture,
computer and television casings and have been found in breast milk and house
dust. In animal studies, they caused liver tumours, interfered with hormone
function and affected behaviour. Some researchers wonder if they are linked
to attention deficit disorders.
"The bottom line," says Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental
Defence, "we are poisoning our children."
This method of sampling human tissues and fluids, known as biomonitoring, is
being used increasingly by environmental groups and governments to get a
sense of the chemicals our bodies are absorbing through air, water, food,
soil and consumer products. Next year Health Canada will start its first
large-scale biomonitoring testing on about 5,000 volunteers, some as young
as 6.
Environmental Defence published its first Toxic Nation study last year,
testing 11 adults for 88 harmful chemicals. This year's follow-up study
focused on families, the youngest children age 10, and was done at expert
labs in Quebec and British Columbia at a cost of $2,000 per person.
The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association points out that not all
biomonitoring studies are equal, that some are comprehensive while others
are carried out primarily for advocacy purposes and may be less robust.
With relatively small numbers of volunteers, Environmental Defence studies
are intended to illustrate that a serious problem exists, not offer a full
diagnosis, explains Smith.
________________________________________
`There are chemicals in my blood that have been banned since 1977. How fair
is that?'
Ada Dowler-Cohen, 10
________________________________________
While traces of chemicals can be detected in the volunteers, no one knows
exactly what it means to human health. People's susceptibilities differ
depending on their genetic make-up. And people are exposed to thousands of
various chemicals at different concentrations and at different times in
their lives.
"It's so incredibly complicated, I'm not sure we'll ever get there," says
Miriam Diamond, a University of Toronto professor in the geography
department who specializes in environmental science. "But we shouldn't wait.
We should act in a precautionary way."
Children tend to be more vulnerable to chemical exposure because they're
still developing and growing, says Diamond. They also take in proportionally
more pollutants than adults. Per kilogram of body weight, they eat more,
drink more, breathe more.
The good news from the study, according to Smith, is that the children had
much lower levels of banned substances, such as PCBs and DDT, than their
parents. "It's a clear indication that when government does act, the levels
of poison do decrease over time."
The bad news is that they show up in kids at all. It points to the need for
government to act quickly to ban other harmful chemicals, says Smith. "The
longer we wait, the more generations of children will be affected."
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act is up for review this year.
Environmental Defence wants to see it amended to make industry more
accountable for the safety of its chemicals and to include an immediate ban
on the most dangerous ones with timelines for the elimination of other toxic
substances.
Pointing to toxin reduction laws in many American states and in Europe,
Smith says Canada is falling behind. "Unless the federal government acts,
Canada risks becoming the market of last resort for poisonous products that
are illegal to sell in other parts of the world."
A proposal from Health Canada and Environment Canada to ban six of the seven
groups of PBDEs is currently being considered by the new government in
Ottawa. "We expect a decision fairly soon," says Paul Glover, director
general of the safe environment program at Health Canada.
The Toxic Nation volunteers are left trying to figure out how to reduce
exposures in their lives. Cohen, a documentary filmmaker in her early 40s,
was shocked to learn she had above-normal levels of cadmium, a carcinogen
associated with cigarettes, even though she smokes rarely. She also had the
greatest levels of mercury among all the study participants. She intends to
cut down on her frequent consumption of fish, some species of which have
high levels of the heavy metal.
Her daughter, Ada, showed an above-normal level of manganese, a suspected
toxin to the respiratory, reproductive and nervous systems that's used in
fuel additives. Cohen wonders if that result has something to do with the
school bus that her daughter rides for about an hour every weekday.
Cohen also plans to buy more organic foods and resist the convenience of
fast foods. Ada had a higher concentration than her mother of PFOA, which is
often used in candy-bar and fast-food wrappers and microwave popcorn bags.
Rummaging through her cupboard, Cohen examines the individually wrapped
cereal and yogurt bars and bags of pita chips that would often go in Ada's
lunch and wonders about the packaging. "It's all so pervasive," she says.
"I'm not sure where to even begin."
________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Filthy folly - sludgewatch admin.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 0 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.web.net/archives/sludgewatch-l/attachments/20060602/0914a6e0/attachment.obj

Previous message: Sludge Watch ==> Canada - new tests find poisons in children's blood, urine
Next message: Sludge Watch ==> Toronto - City weighs its options in search of landfill
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

More information about the Sludgewatch-l mailing list