Sludge Watch ==> No evidence sludge is safe

[Maureen Reilly]

Belleville Intelligencer, Ontario Canada
Feb 5, 2008

No evidence sludge is safe


We read with interest your Jan. 23 editorial (Economics and Science Support 
Use of Sludge), in which two professors assure us we have nothing to fear 
from the spreading of sewage sludge on farmland in Prince Edward County.

In the past we have been lulled into believing we had nothing to fear from 
DDT, asbestos, thalidomide, formaldehyde in insulation, smoking, lead in 
gasoline, Vioxx and so on. Always scientist spokespeople assure us there is 
no evidence for concern. Later, after enough people have been killed, 
sickened, disabled or brain-damaged, and an offending substance has finally 
been banned or controlled, then the scientist spokespeople move on to their 
next contracts, leaving behind no trace but the victims.

One of the sludge proponents, Prof. Chris Kinsley, works at the Ontario 
Rural Wastewater Centre. According to its website, the ORWC is "a strong 
supporter of the onsite industry," which includes companies that haul and 
spread sludge. Let's compare some of the professors' claims with the 
positions of other scientists whose vested interests are not linked to the 
disposal of sewage.

Prof. Kinsley says, "There is no evidence or studies showing the migration 
of pathogens into the human food chain..."

At Cornell University, Ellen Harrison, director of the Cornell Waste 
Management Institute, confirms the scarcity of objective data. Neither 
governments nor most academic institutions (Cornell is a rare exception) 
have bothered to seek it, and in some cases have actively suppressed it. 
Harrison sees this failure not as cause for comfort but grounds for concern. 
"Our concern is that we are spreading such a complex mixture of chemicals - 
from pharmaceuticals and personal care products to PCBs - across the 
landscape where we eat, work and play."

Lest we be complacent, the Ontario government has been no better than its 
U.S. counterparts at monitoring or regulating the ever-increasing 
contaminants in sludge.

So, on the one hand we have a professor who says what we don't know won't 
hurt us, and on the other hand, one who says we should proceed with great 
caution until we do know. Which would you trust?

The other professor in your editorial, Dr. Bev Hale, says, "Without a doubt 
there are pharmaceuticals present, there are pathogens present and there are 
metals, but... It is my opinion that none of these things are there in 
concentrations high enough to cause human or environmental concern." The 
basis for this opinion is not given.

On the other hand, the Canadian Infectious Diseases Society (a non-profit 
organization of medical and scientific professionals in Infectious Diseases 
and Medical Microbiology), said in 2001:

"The Society would like to see further assessments of the safety of 
bio-materials as they are used in Canada, in order to limit their use to 
what is known to be safe. This is especially true if this material is placed 
into contact with the population's immediate environment, foodstuffs such as 
vegetables and plants for human consumption, or in close proximity to the 
water supply. A moratorium on their use is certainly in order where 
insufficient data exists regarding safety to the Canadian population."

In your editorial you conclude that sludge spreading by Belleville and 
Quinte West is proof that "sludge does work." For whom?

Sludge is spread on farm fields. Farm fields grow food, either directly 
(produce) or indirectly (animals). People in Belleville eat food that is 
grown on these fields, including some in Prince Edward County. We are what 
we eat.

We do have a choice. We can continue to swallow the same old sludge, or we 
can be guided by precaution, stop spreading sewage sludge on rural land, and 
put our minds to exploring safer, more sustainable alternatives.

Michael Riordon

Myrna Wood

For the Safe Water Group

Prince Edward County


http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=887917