Letter: FREE FROM RISK?

Dear Editor:

It is not uncommon for media outlet [sic] to be ignorant of sewage and sewage sludge biosolids. 

Here is yet another story that fits ignorance to a fault. https://www.theheraldtimes.com/biosolids-applied-to-rangely-field-passed-safety-test/rangely/

It all begins with the premise that ALL sewage sludge is derived from a household toilet. That is, in fact, a bald face lie perpetuated by the sewage industry and even municipalities.

You can see it in Drake’s statement, “It is highly regulated, and safe.”

Is Drake saying the most contaminated substance on the planet is FREE FROM RISK? Last, I look the definition of “safe” was (3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet.) I am sure Rio Blanco County Public Health can produce current data on the “safety” of biosolids of any class.  The only thing regulated about biosolids is that it is a perfect example of regulatory failure.

Indecently, the EPA’s opening biosolids web page took down this statement, “Decade of research demonstrate the “SAFETY “of biosolids” three weeks ago and after 19-P-0002 from the EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report released 11/15/2019. “EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds of Unregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids on Human Health and the Environment.” The author of this brief needs to ask ANY Public Health service for any documentation showing biosolids are “safe.” I would also avoid the questions and answers on the EPA’s biosolids web page as they are outdated, corrupt and just wrong.

You can also see it in LaBonde statement that “Biosolids are considered beneficial fertilizer,” and “It’s far better to apply it for beneficial use than applying it to a landfill.” Just take a guess who biosolids benefits when you consider dumping on a farm is more or less free and it cost to put it in a land fill?

Just take a guess at who is being exposed to every chemical in the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (https://www.epa.gov/tsca-inventory/about-tsca-chemical-substance-inventory ) and then guess what chemical carcinogens exposure does for cancer, chronic disease and birth defects as it enters your water supply, your food and chemical laden dust from a dump site. When you here [sic] the sewage industry exclaim that the chemicals in biosolids are inconsequential and insignificant, ask they [sic] for current tests and research that show it is. Ask them how much exposure will it take to cause cancer, chronic diseases and birth defects. Ask them if they have ever gone through the barbaric cancer treatment.

It makes absolutely no difference on the amount left of fecal coliform in A and B and notice NONE even mentioned chemicals. Testing of biosolids from regulations made in the ’70s is a health joke on public.

Be sure to also read the OIG report no 14-P-0363 which warns about industrial pre treatment not working nor has it ever worked. It cannot possible work when the EPA has not updated the priority pollutant list since 1981 and will NOT even address the chemicals found in the TSCA.

In conclusion: Think for a moment about just how absurd this “biosolids” business model really is. The wastewater treatment facilities have spent a great deal of time, effort and money collecting, concentrating, and segregating the pollutants out of the water … so why on earth would we turn around and put those piles of toxins back into the environment we just eliminated them from? That is truly a short-sighted practice that merely supports a business model based on “pushing” pollution.

Situating a gasification/pyrolysis (or clean incineration) plant directly beside the water facility would dramatically cut trucking.

You have been warned and I do not get paid to do it.

Craig Monk

Waxahachie, Texas

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*