Sludge Watch ==> Sludge Ethics in Black and White - Rufus: eating sludge ok for kids not cows

Maureen Reilly maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca
Thu Apr 17 12:48:24 EDT 2008

Previous message: Sludge Watch ==> Ontario: Prince Edward County extends bans on spreading sludge
Next message: Sludge Watch ==> Georgia Univ - mute on fabricated sludge data to garner bioterror grant money?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Rufus Chaney is one of the US soil scientists behind sending sludge composts
to lead contaminated urban communities - saying it was safe for children to
ingest.

While he doesn't seem to mind children eating this sludge - he does not like
to see cattle eat it.

See his comments on exposing children in a poor black, lead-contaminated
community:

"Rufus Chaney, an Agriculture Department research agronomist who co-wrote
the Baltimore study, said the researchers provided the families with
brochures about lead hazards, tested the soil in their yards and gave
assurances that the Orgro fertilizer was store-bought and perfectly safe.

"They were told that their lawn, as it stood, before it was treated, was a
lead danger to their children," said Chaney. "So that even if they ate some
of the soil, there would not be as much of a risk as there was before. And
that's what the science shows."

But when it comes to cattle, Mr Chaney prefers they not be exposed to sludge
and sludge composts
He suggests not allowing it on the surface of the soil where animals will
graze, but requiring it to plowed down into the soil rather than staying on
the surface.

"I RECOMMEND AS A GUIDANCE ALL BIOSOLIDS BE INCORPORATED BEFORE GRAZING
OCCURS"
See:
http://deadlydeceit.com/Risk-livestock.html

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/A5004E426B1C0CF38625742E0001D35A?OpenDocument

Ethics in black and white
St Louis Post Dispatch

04/17/2008

St. Peters and East St. Louis are 30 miles apart, but they might as well be
at opposite poles of the Earth. The population of one city is almost
entirely white; the other, almost entirely black. In housing prices, poverty
and income, they stand on opposite ends of the spectrum. Also, apparently,
in sewage.

In 2001, scientists used federal grant money to transport 18 tractor-trailer
loads of sewage sludge from St. Peters to East St. Louis. There it was
applied to an empty lot across from an elementary school and a community
center.

The experiment was designed to test whether sewage sludge â€” the semi-solid
remains of human waste mixed with grass and brush clippings to form a
compost â€” could protect against lead poisoning.

In theory, the answer is yes. Metals in the sludge bind with the lead and
keep it in the soil. But significant questions remain, even after the
two-year study, about whether the treatment actually works. And questions
remain about the health effects of exposure to sewage sludge and whether
parents living around the study site were adequately warned of potential
risks to their children.

One more question: Does the value of information obtained through the
research in East St. Louis and a larger study in Baltimore outweigh the harm
that both have caused? Answer: Probably not.

Racial health disparities are a major problem. African-Americans have death
rates from cancer, heart disease and almost every other cause that are
substantially higher than whites. Part of the reason for that is trust â€”
or, more precisely, the lack of it.

Studies have revealed that many poor African-Americans are skeptical of
medical advice, especially when it comes from white doctors. That's part of
the toxic legacy of Tuskegee, a decades-long study in that Alabama city in
which treatment was withheld from black men with syphilis so that doctors
could document the men's deterioration and death.

That skepticism will be strained further by news of the sewage studies,
first reported this week by the Associated Press.

Sewage sludge was applied to the yards of private homes in poor
neighborhoods of Baltimore, as well as the vacant lot in East St. Louis.
People living around those sites weren't told of experts' concerns about
possible adverse health effects, federal officials acknowledged.

"Informed consent," the doctrine that research subjects have the right to be
fully informed about the risks they're facing, is a basic tenet of
scientific research. East St. Louis residents supposedly were notified of
the test by fliers distributed in their neighborhoods. Some long-time
residents told Post-Dispatch reporters they never heard of the study.

An Environmental Protection Agency-funded newsletter assured residents that
the work was safe. "If people, particularly children, get lead-contaminated
dirt in their mouths, the lead will pass through their system and not be
absorbed," it said.

Experts say it's not clear that is true. In any case, no lead tests were
performed on children and pregnant women for the study. Nor was follow-up
medical care available.

The study's lead author, Mark Farfel, was chastised by Maryland's highest
court in 2001 for earlier research in which 75 poor children were exposed to
lead paint. That alone should have made him ineligible for further federal
funding.

Congress should investigate these questionable studies, which continue the
tragic legacy of earlier experiments on the poor, the powerless and the
inadequately informed.

It's impossible to imagine that the study could have been reversed, that
sludge from East St. Louis could have been sprayed on a lot in St. Peters,
without massive public outrage. The rights and safety of the people who live
in inner-city neighborhoods deserve no less protection than those of people
in affluent suburbs.