Difference between revisions of "Biosolids"

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (SW: removed badge)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{#badges: WaterEnergy}}
 
 
'''Biosolids''' is the PR euphemism for toxic [[sewage sludge]].  It was chosen in a PR contest by the lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, the [[Water Environment Federation]] (WEF). The WEF, with the support of the [[Environmental Protection Agency]], turned to the disposal of sewage sludge on land after the imposition of bans on ocean disposal and incineration.  Instead of treating it as industrial waste it should be used as crop fertilizer on farms. However, central to an image makeover for sewage sludge from toxic waste to beneficial fertilizer, was a name change from sewage sludge to '''biosolids'''.
 
'''Biosolids''' is the PR euphemism for toxic [[sewage sludge]].  It was chosen in a PR contest by the lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, the [[Water Environment Federation]] (WEF). The WEF, with the support of the [[Environmental Protection Agency]], turned to the disposal of sewage sludge on land after the imposition of bans on ocean disposal and incineration.  Instead of treating it as industrial waste it should be used as crop fertilizer on farms. However, central to an image makeover for sewage sludge from toxic waste to beneficial fertilizer, was a name change from sewage sludge to '''biosolids'''.
  

Revision as of 17:26, 30 June 2010

Biosolids is the PR euphemism for toxic sewage sludge. It was chosen in a PR contest by the lobby association for U.S. sewage treatment plants, the Water Environment Federation (WEF). The WEF, with the support of the Environmental Protection Agency, turned to the disposal of sewage sludge on land after the imposition of bans on ocean disposal and incineration. Instead of treating it as industrial waste it should be used as crop fertilizer on farms. However, central to an image makeover for sewage sludge from toxic waste to beneficial fertilizer, was a name change from sewage sludge to biosolids.

Toxic Sewage Sludge Given Away as "Organic Biosolids Compost"

In 2009 a major controversy erupted in San Francisco when the Center for Food Safety and the Organic Consumers Association called on the SFPUC to end its give-away of toxic sewage sludge as free "organic biosolids compost" to gardeners. A March 4, 2010, demonstration at City Hall by the OCA forced a temporary halt to the program. (See articles below)[1] [2][3][4] [5] The misleading labeled "organic compost," which the PUC has given away free to gardeners since 2007, is composed of toxic sewage sludge from San Francisco and eight other counties. Very little toxicity testing has been done, but what little has been done is alarming. Just the sludge from San Francisco alone has tested positive for 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (a.k.a. DBCP), Isopropyltoluene (a.k.a. p-cymene or p-isopropyltoluene), Dioxins and Furans. [6]

"Toxic Sludge Is Good For You!"

Authors John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton tell the history of the word "biosolids" in their 1995 book Toxic Sludge is Good for You.

  • "The (Water Environment Federation's) proposal to create a 'Name Change Task Force' originated with Peter Machno, manager of Seattle's sludge program, after protesters mobilized against his plan to spread sludge on local tree farms. 'If I knocked on your door and said I've got this beneficial product called sludge, what are you going to say?' he asked. At Machno's suggestion, the Federation newsletter published a request for alternative names. Members sent in over 250 suggestions including 'all growth,' 'purenutri,' 'biolife,' 'bioslurp,' 'blackgold,' 'geoslime,' 'sca-doo,' 'the end product,' 'humanure,' 'hu-doo,' 'organic residuals,' 'bioresidue,' 'urban biomass,' 'powergro,' 'organite,' 'recylite,' nutricake,' and 'ROSE,' short for 'recycling of solids environmentally.' In June of 1991 the Name Change Task Force fnally settled on 'biosolids,' which it defined as 'the nutrient-rich organic byproduct of the nation's wastewater treatment process.'" [7]


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.


References

  1. ↑ Heather Knight, Nonprofit calls PUC's compost toxic sludge, San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2009.
  2. ↑ Barry Estabrook, Free Compost--Or Toxic Sludge?, The Atlantic, December 1, 2009
  3. ↑ Anna Werner, Concern Over SF Compost Made from Sewage Sludge, CBS Channel 5, March 3, 2010
  4. ↑ Leora Broydo Vestel, http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/food-groups-clash-over-compost-sludge/ Food Groups Clash Over Compost Sludge, New York Times Green Inc. blog, April 9 2010.
  5. ↑ Chris Roberts, Farmers Call PUC's Shit, Will Dump it on City Hall Today, San Francisco Appeal, March 4, 2010.
  6. ↑ Jill Richardson, What San Francisco Found in Their Own Sludge, La Vida Locavore blog, April 8, 2010.
  7. ↑ John Stauber and Sheldon Ramtpon, Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! LIes, Damned Lies and the Public Relations Industry, Pages 105-106, Common Courage Press, 1995.

Case studies

Other SourceWatch resources

External links


This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Biosolids&oldid=484548"