Sludge Watch ==> Ontario - Not happy about sewage sludge

[Maureen Reilly]

PUBLIC OPINION

Letter to Editor

Ontario Farmer

Tuesday December 18, 2007

A6



Dear editor:

Re:  Biosolids are safe and a great source of affordable nutrients (Nov 
6/07)



Biosolids may indeed be an important source of nitrogen, phosphorus, and 
organic material.  If so, they should be labelled under the Fertilizer Act 
as to their consistency of nutrients,   The label would then have to include 
all other elements and toxins that are in the product and probably could not 
meet the Fertilizer Act standards.  I am finding it very difficult to get a 
complete analysis what this nasty stuff really contains.  Does this analysis 
even exist?

You must remember that every drain in the city is connected to the sewage 
treatment plant.  Be it arsenic, lead, mercury, chromium and other heavy 
metals from industry, to parasitic eggs, pathogens, carcinogens, resistant 
bacteria and pharmaceutical drugs from hospitals, to the vast array of 
household cleaners and disinfectants, to fire retardants. , P.C.Bs, 
estrogen, E.coli, petroleum products (the list goes on) ends up on a tanker 
delivered to a rural farm.  All this is included in the so-called no cost 
fertilizer you speak of.  If the sludge truly contains only beneficial 
nutrients, then where did all of the above poisons get disposed of?

The University of Ottawa proved that 80% of the viruses such as C-Defical, 
SARS, MRSA, and Mad Cow prions do survive the treatment process and can 
regain their disease-causing abilities once in the soil.

In Achere and Anise, France the spreading of biosolids was halted after 
creating several areas where the land became toxic and sterile.  Jean 
Pierrre Radet, President of the Chamber of Agriculture (Commey Val dOise, 
France) stated that some farms were contaminated for 20 years after one 
single application.  Now sugar beets cannot be grown on this land.

Michel Carrond (Eng.), Federal Environment Office, Berne, Switzerland along 
with his scientists determined that micro pollutants survived the sewage 
treatment process and were later found surviving in the soil.  This to them 
was a ticking time bomb and they banned spreading biosolids country-wide.

Pascal Corminboeuf (minister of Agriculture, Fribourg, Switzerland) along 
with farmers, scientists and other politicians determined that toxins in the 
sludge were transferred to produce.  After finding high levels of heavy 
metals like zinc and copper in lettuce, potatoes and grain, the application 
of biosolids was immediately banned as these foods were rejected by 
consumers.

In the U.S., Dr. Ellen Harrison from Cornel University, developed an 
expertise on the subject of biosolids,  In 2002, she co-authored a study on 
328 people exposed to sludge spreading.  What she determined from her 
research is that neither the EPA nor any other government agency has ever 
tested for the effects of biosolid spreading and exposure.  If the U.S. has 
not done this, what are the chances that the Canadian government has done 
any in depth studies?  She concluded that biosolid spreading should be 
banned immediately.  In one of her research tests, a professor had a parcel 
of property where 25 years ago, sludge was spread on half of it.

To this day, there are no earthworms on the sludge side.  Earthworms are an 
indicator of healthy soils and absence of them is a concern indicating 
something is wrong.  If a simple life-form such as a worn cannot survive, 
can human life be in danger?  She also concluded that agricultural soil 
should not be a place to dump unwanted things.  Once you contaminate it, 
youre in trouble.

Dr. David Lewis (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Philadelphia) a 
microbiologist with many years experience was finding problems with people 
in sludge-spread areas.  He decided to investigate more deeply into the 
issues pertaining to the sludge and health of citizens.  However, when the 
EPA discovered what he as doing, he was fired.  He reflects on the 
short-sightedness of the government stating no one is saying that sludge 
caused sickness and yet no one is investigating if it did.

Closer to home, Director of Critical Care Medicine for Grand River Hospital, 
Dr. William Plaxton summaries from a medical and public health perspective,, 
I am quite surprised that nay proposal involving the international shipping 
and spreading of human waste materials onto rural properties could gain 
traction.  The Ontario experience with groundwater contamination of human 
and animal waste has been tragic, and has resulted in loss of property, loss 
of health and loss of life which has affected many Ontarians.  He also 
states  the current proposal to use human waste for fertilization purposes 
is in my opinion a willing ness to flirt with measurable risk to human 
health and wellness- and one which neglects our experiences with quite 
congruent situations from Walkerton and Kashechewan.  His main areas of 
concern are toxins and bacteriological contaminants, as well as 
pharmaceutical contamination.

I believe farmers are being sold on the cheap fertilizer value of biosolids. 
  They believe they are signing to receive only human waste and are not 
informed of the other toxins in the sludge.  In effect, they are signing to 
accept toxic wastes.  Also, they are not told that once the sludge is 
applied, no one but the land owner is held responsible for any liability if 
any contamination is to occur on their property or their neighbour.  
Presently, Farm Credit, Toronto Dominion (TD) Bank and the Royal Bank of 
Canada are asking for disclosure of biosolid spreading when applying for 
credit, since no really provincial registry is kept of spread locations.  I 
also wouldnt be surprise d if other financial institutions require the same. 
  This fact alone should make a person think why is there no public registry 
when listing of oil wells, water wells, septic systems..etc. is required?  
What would happen to land values if someday it is mandated that biosolid 
spread areas should be classified as brown fields?  What then happens to 
neighbouring properties?

The reality from Michigan, New York and Ohio land fill sites to reduce 
Ontario tonnage is putting great pressure on our municipalities to dispose 
of their wastes locally.  The technology is available for them to deal with 
their own garbage and sewage problems, yet they seem resistant to accept it. 
  It is so easy to dump it on rural Ontario and yet this disposal method is 
extremely dangerous and irresponsible.

So yes, you take biosolids and apply them to crop land and I am pretty sure 
you can get some good crop results.  But remember, we all know similar 
contaminants killed a number of people in Walkerton.  And yes, you do get a 
bit of free fertilizer, but at what real cost?



Ed Magda, Princeton





...........................................................................................

Township wants answers on biosolids

By Bill Freeman
Asphodel-Norwood - Township Council has added its voice to the chorus of 
concerns over the spreading of biosolids.

The municipality is threatening to create a bylaw that would prevent users 
from spreading biosolids in Asphodel-Norwood and is challenging the Ministry 
of Environment to tell them why it can't.
"Get the MOE to tell us...why we can or can't because we are thinking of 
this," says Deputy-Reeve Terry Low. "Give us a reason why we can't."

Council will formally invite the Ministry to a meeting to clarify the issue 
of biosolid use on farm fields.
"The issue is more highlighted today than it ever was," says Low.

Local farmer Bob Sedgwick gave councillors a copy of a recent letter that 
appeared in The Ontario Farmer with details on the "ticking time bomb.? The 
letter says some farmers look at biosolids as "cheap fertilizer" and aren't 
aware of the toxins contained in the sludge they spread.
They are not told that the farmer is liable for contamination issues once it 
is spread on their fields.
Many financial institutions now require information on biosolids when 
farmers apply for credit because there is no provincial registry of spread 
locations.

Sedgwick does not use biosolids, buying his own fertilizer, but feels 
biosolid use on fields has affected his health.

"We're tired all the time. I don't know if that relates or not. There's 
something going on."
He says more farmers than ever are concerned about the issue but many still 
see it as a cheap source of fertilizer.

"They think they're getting something but they don't know what they're 
getting. You haven't got a clue."

"Mr. Sedgwick is part of a larger group that is saying you really should 
take a look at this before putting it in the municipality," says Low. "You 
need to ask for more information on this before we condone the use of this 
in and around our neighbourhood."
Reeve Doug Pearcy laments the lack of municipal control and wants a meeting 
with the MOE.
"We don't have anything to say about this. That's why we I want them to come 
here. I believe they should come to this table and answer these questions."

Because the approval rests with the province, with a move afoot to make 
non-agricultural source materials (NASM) part of the nutrient management act 
and not the MOE certificate of approval process, CAO Valerie Pryzbilla 
doesn't think the Township could enact its own bylaw.
Low admits they have to be "prudent in what we do here" but feels they need 
to get the Ministry's attention.

"The act of today will be the standard of five years from now."

www.shieldmedia.ca



.........................................


CIELAP showing of CRAPSHOOT: the Gamble with our Waste
Monday January 21, 2008 at 7 pm
NFB offices
150 John Street (at Richmond St W)
416 973 3012

http://www.nfb.ca/mediatheque/dethoraire.php?actif=0&idT=&idSM=&id=760


Crapshoot - The Gamble With Our Wastes - Directed by Jeff McKay

A hazardous mix of waste is flushed into the sewer every day. The billions 
of litres of water-combined with unknown quantities of chemicals, solvents, 
heavy metals, human waste and food-where does it all go? And what does it do 
to us?

>From ancient times, countries have chosen the sewer to get rid of household 
and industrial waste, yet the contaminants we flush resurface in our food 
chain. Fish swim through waste water dumped into rivers, while sewage sludge 
is spread on farmland as fertilizer.

Filmed in Italy, India, Sweden, the United States and Canada, this bold 
documentary questions whether the sewer is actually compounding our waste 
problems. While scientists warn of links between sewage practices and 
potential health risks, activists, engineers and concerned citizens 
challenge our fundamental attitudes to waste. Does our need to dispose of 
waste take precedence over public safety? What are the alternatives?


2003, 52 min 43 s

7 PM
FREE

Schedule
January 21 2008
07:00 PM