Toxic sludge

"Biosolids" - marketing waste and deceiving farmers - a wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
One of the main arguments for the use of "processed" sewage sludge on agricultural lands is that it is a positive example of "reusing" and "recycling" - that sacred mantra of the environmental movement. People first introduced (at a superficial level) to the concept of using biosolids are initially swayed, as I was, by the use of these positive terms, into believing that this must be a good thing - after all is this process not endeavouring to make a sustainable, ecologically sound contribution to the management of waste? Is not the sludge industry and the government doing a good thing by converting this waste into a usable, eco- friendly product?

Unfortunately this is just not the case. Initially comforted by these cosy terms, I did further reading into the issue, and an examination of non-industry sponsored (arm's length / independent) scientific research, reveals clearly that this is simply an attempt to market something noxious as something good.
 
This is not a case of "reusing" a plastic bag, or "recycling" some coffee grounds into the backyard compost pile. Remember that what we are dealing with here is the concentrated by-product of the water treatment process. This is the stuff left over when water has been eliminated and returned back into the environment - this is the stuff that we wanted OUT of the water specifically because it was toxic. How then are we to "reuse and recycle" this copious accumulation of toxins? We can't - so we spread it thin, throughout the environment, and cross our fingers that all will be well.
 
This industry has used the terminology of the environmental movement but has done so in a disingenuous way. This process is not about recycling and reusing harmless organic materials. This process is all about attempting too hide tons of toxic residue throughout our environment. To pretend that this is an environmentally positive act is nonsense.

Yes, the resultant sludge does have things that plants need - nitrogen, and phosphorous for instance - and this is the "selling point" for duping the poor farmers and ranchers who wish to save on fertilizer costs. Unfortunately this is not an honest description of what ends up on the fields and in the forests. Along with a few usable substances, comes all the other unmentioned toxic components. As Dr. Snyder (PhD Harvard) has noted in her eye-opening account of this waste management process, "No amount of treatment can remove or treat PCBs, dioxins, endocrine disrupters, solvents, detergents, prions and superbugs and thousands of other unregulated pollutants in the waste stream; instead most concentrate in biosolids and many magnify in the food chain and are absorbed by plants." She also points out how this free gift of nutrients to the farmers comes at a price: "Is the short-term yield increase, caused by the nitrogen and water in sludge worth the long-term DECREASE in yields? Both the US and Canadian regulations permit cumulative pollutant loading of soils, until there is a 50% yield reduction." This is clearly a case of short-term gain, and long-term pain. You can be sure the farmers are not told of the long-term loss of soil fertility.
 
The sludge industry couches its business in the cosy terms of sustainability - compost, organics, soil enhancement etc. in its attempt to market its insidious product and make it appear innocent. Like the child in the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes, we need to stand up and call out what is really facing us here - a serious threat to health dressed up as something benign and beneficial. It's a lie - pure and simple.

It seems that a lot of people in this community believe that we can trust the government and its laws and guidelines to safeguard our health and that of our children. That would be (and has been literally) a "grave" mistake ... government legislation is always performing a catch up game ... tobacco, thalidomide, asbestos ... all government approved until science caught up ... and now we are paying the price for these (and many more) government errors. I have little doubt that biosolids used as fertilizer will be the next big mistake - initially condoned by our government, and then after a series of tragic events, seen as yet another failed experiment at the public's expense. What I am advocating is employing a "precautionary principle" towards acts that may endanger health and/or the environment. More research needs to be done. In the meantime let's stop playing Russian roulette with our health and our environment. Let's also start calling this substance "biosolids" what it really is - toxic sludge.

Don Vincent
Merritt BC