Difference between revisions of "Biosolids"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (add other D resources)
m (remove dupe links)
Line 24: Line 24:
 
*[[sewage sludge]]
 
*[[sewage sludge]]
 
*[[The EPA's plan to bypass opposition to sewage sludge disposal]]
 
*[[The EPA's plan to bypass opposition to sewage sludge disposal]]
*[[Water Environment Federation]]
 
*[[You say biosolids, I say sewage sludge]]
 
 
*[[Water Environment Federation]]
 
*[[Water Environment Federation]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
*John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, "[http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1995Q3/index.html Flack Attack]", ''PR Watch'', Volume 2, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1995.
 
*John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, "[http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1995Q3/index.html Flack Attack]", ''PR Watch'', Volume 2, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1995.

Revision as of 02:35, 16 September 2004

Biosolids is the name preferred by the lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, the Water Environment Federation (WEF), for sewage sludge.

The WEF, with the support of the Environment Protection Agency, turned to the disposal of sewage sludge on land after the imposition of bans on ocean disposal and incineration.

However faced with increasing volumes and problems with landfills, WEF sought to persuade the EPA that instead of treating it as industrial waste it should be used as fertisilizer on farms. However, central to a makeover from toxic waste to beneficial fertilizer, was a name change from sewage sludge to biosolids.

Downplaying risks

"There's no doubt that people have been harmed by sewage sludge, but I don't know of any cases where it's been proved beyond a doubt," says Stanford Tackett, a chemist and lead expert.

Tackett's seemingly contradictory statement captures the scientific loophole that PR practitioners use routinely to cover up health hazards. Scientific "proof" is something achieved under laboratory conditions with strict control of all variables. In the real world, those controlled laboratory conditions do not exist.

As an example, Tackett cites a case in Oklahoma where a farmer fed hay grown on sludge-fertilized land to his miniature horses. After nine horses died and 113 others developed liver problems, the farmer took his case to veterinarians at the University of Oklahoma, who tested the hay and found high levels of heavy metals from sludge. Heavy metals are known to cause problems similar to those the horses had experienced. They fed the hay to a healthy horse, and it promptly developed the same problems as the other horses.

"Even in that case, the sludge promoters were able to claim in court that there's no scientific proof that sludge caused the deaths of the horses," Tackett said. "In a strict scientific sense, they're correct." In the real world, however, a rational person can reasonably conclude that sludge was the most likely cause of death, and a reasonable person would want to avoid eating food raised on sludge-fertilized land.

The PR campaign surrounding sludge is aimed at keeping people unaware that sludge is being used as fertilizer so they cannot make informed decisions about its risks. Milorganite fertilizer, for example, is sold in all 50 states in bags describing it as a natural "organic fertilizer." Small print at the bottom of the bag states that it is "produced only by Milorganite Division--MMSD." Outside Milwaukee, very few people know that "MMSD" stands for "Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District," and that they are spreading sewage sludge on their lawns and gardens.

Case studies

Other SourceWatch resources

External links

  • John C. Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, "Flack Attack", PR Watch, Volume 2, No. 3, 3rd Quarter 1995.