I'm having a hard time swallowing Dr. Klag's take on this story.
The fact remains that this was an 'experiment'conducted on humans, not in a laboratory on animals with comparable lead exposure. He justifies their actions, in part, by saying that the community was cooperative with the 'study'. That reminds me of what happened in India. Not long ago, representatives and scientists from very large corporate, agri-business descended on the poor sectors of India's farmland where families had farmed these sane plots for centuries in some cases. The corporates extolled the virtues of a near -magical seed that would triple and quadruple their yield and the farmers agreed to plant it. However they were not told of course that the seed was genetically modified and it cross pollinated rapidly across the country aberrating crops like a prairie fire. Once the farmers found out, they burned all their fields in horror
at the consequences and were left with no harvest for the year and went hungry. Many, if not most of these farmers couldn't read but they understood the devastaion they faced if they'd allowed this pollination to rage through all of India.

This type of manipulation goes on with the poor and the vulnerable with regularity. The "co-operation of the community" to which Dr. Klag refers often means abuse of trust and condescension. With full knowledge that the poor are usually incapable of securing legal representation and in many cases can barely keep body and soul together, science and business, not seldom, position their toxins and experiments in low income social sectors with low visibility- in the fog of poverty. Think of the nuclear reactors and careless detonations in remote areas where large percentages of people developed cancer and died. Even our own troops in Viet Nam and the Gulf War, in their 'extremis' were subjected to Agent Orange , Napalm and other deadly and hazardous poisons, not only inflicted on the soldiers themselves, but with potential to cause birth defecta in their children. I suspect the logic was that these soldiers would be so traumatized and would rarely have the clout to go up against the Military and the Government itself. Many of these 'victims' languish today without care, suffering the ravagees of long term effects. And now we have iraq.

The fact remains that in Baltimore, there was absolutely no follow up on the 'subjects' of the experiment. . We don't know who they are. That no regular medical oversight was provided for them- as there are no medical records and that these people have seemingly vanished without a trace, factually indicates that there was little or no concern for their long term welfare. Personally think this is unjustifiable.

No doubt, had this same study been proposed in upscale neighborhoods, (where , yes, there are also lead detections) there would have been outcry and the experiment would never have been authorized. These families would not have tolerated "little Johnny' playing in the sludge. Bottom line: sounds like there were NO efforts made to conduct this experiment equitably . I think this was wrong and I think those people should answer for it. It's bad science and bad policy- and that policy starts at the top. Just check out the infrastructure of any low income neighborhood in large urban centers, They stack up against toney neighborhoods like favellas in Rio. The white glove standard for hardly applies. Policy allows for this double standard in it's application. The science is the administered dose.

Call it compost, call it sludge but sludge by any other name stlll smells as ...well you know the rest....They may use it on the White House lawn but surely not in the concentrations that were used for this experiment and anyway, when was the last time you saw George Bush rolling around in it? Children did.

wwhitman

Sent by wwhitman | 4:54 AM ET | 04-25-2008

John Heilprin's story will ultimately be exposed as a hoax if there are any journalists left with just the slightest amount of professional skepticism and willingness to consider the facts. Heilprin clearly decided what his conclusions would be over a year ago and ignored 30 years of scientific research and practical experience that demonstrate the safety and benefits of biosolids. He then cynically introduced false claims of racial injustice, knowing that they would provoke hot-button reactions from community leaders, politicians, journalists and editorial writers that would suffocate the truth. NPR and Farai Chideya are the first to actually present both sides of the Baltimore story. Dig deeper. The only thing toxic here is Heilprin's journalism.

Sent by Charles Hooks | 9:30 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I appreciate your coverage of this story. As AP reporter John Heilprin noted, he and his colleague Kevin Vineys have conducted interviews and investigations about biosolids management in the U. S. for the past year. As Executive Director of a regional association of biosolids management professionals - many of whom are public employees -- I welcomed Mr. Heilprin's interest and was interviewed last July. I was one of many involved in biosolids management whom he interviewed; others included public wastewater treatment facility managers, regulatory officials, and research scientists.

Mr. Heilprin learned from me and others a great deal about biosolids. However, in his and Vineys' recent AP stories, they have not included much of this information. None included mention of the broad scientific understanding of the benefits of biosolids use on soils. They did not discuss the preponderance of results of the 30+ years of focused research on biosolids use on soils by U. S. EPA, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, and leading universities; the fact that an international conference reviewing the science has occurred every ten years (last in January 2004) with a general finding that this is an acceptable practice, and the fact that two National Academy of Sciences' reviews found "negligible risk" from use of biosolids on food crops (NAS, 1996) and "there is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health," even as the authors encouraged U. S. EPA to continue updating the science (NAS, 2002) - which is being done. Nor did they mention that most states have stricter regulations than U. S. EPA.

And they did not mention a fact clearly pertinent to their story of the use of biosolids compost to mitigate lead bioavailability in soils in Baltimore and east St. Louis: that biosolids have been invaluable tools used for years in mitigating metal contamination in mining areas where nothing had grown for decades. These sites at Leadville, CO and in Idaho and Pennsylvania and elsewhere have recovered dramatically - and the bioavailability of lead and other toxic elements have been reduced - due to the same science that was relied on for the use of biosolids compost in Baltimore. At these sites, researchers tested soil biota and small mammals and found no significant negative effects of the use of biosolids applied at relatively large rates (e.g. the work of Sopper at Penn State beginning more than thirty years ago and work this decade of Brown of the University of Washington).

As Dr. Klag noted in his interview with NPR, the biosolids compost used at the sites in Baltimore -- and similar biosolids compost products -- are widely bought and sold in the soil amendment product marketplace. U. S. EPA requires testing and monitoring of these products more than is required of any other soil amendment. In addition, many states require testing for even more potential contaminants, and many public utilities and companies that produce and manage biosolids compost voluntarily test even more. The fact is, biosolids compost is an established, proven, widely accepted, safe material that benefits soils and puts to use nutrients and organic matter recycled from wastewater. Recycling biosolids is part of reaching for sustainability.

I encourage Mr. Heilprin and Mr. Vineys to release the hundreds of hours of interviews and the copious information they have gathered about biosolids management. This is information I and others willingly shared, because we are proud of the work we and our colleagues do each day, 24-7, to manage wastewater and the solids (sewage sludge) that are removed from it. If AP is interested in stimulating constructive public discussion of this topic, then they can do so by providing this additional information.

Those of us involved in biosolids management welcome the public interest. We encourage reporters and citizens to learn more about what happens after the flush. Call your local public wastewater treatment facility and arrange for a tour.

As readers of the British Medical Journal noted last year, sanitation has been the greatest medical advance since 1840. Wastewater treatment to keep our natural waters clean is a critical public function. Managing the solids from that process is not optional. U. S. EPA and state regulatory agencies allow three options: put it in a landfill, burn it in incinerators, or treat and test it and, if it meets the standards, apply it to soils. Each presents particular risks and benefits. Each local public utility makes its own decision regarding what to do with its wastewater solids (sewage sludge). Use of biosolids on soil, when conducted in accordance with federal and state regulations, is often the best environmental choice. Currently, about 55% of the 7.2 million dry tons of wastewater solids produced in the U. S. are applied to soils. While research continues and those of us in the profession are constantly learning and improving practices, we see this as a significant environmental success.

Sent by Ned Beecher | 11:09 AM ET | 04-25-2008

I appreciate the fact that NPR ran a more balanced story than the original AP story. Mr. Heiprin mentioned he has been investingating "sludge" for about one year. What I find fascinating is that he has interviewed numerous wastewater treatment professionals, scientists who have actually researched the use of biosolids, farmers who use the product etc. however he has never included any of this positive information in his reporting. He clearly does not understand wastewater treatment nor the difference between Class A and Class B biosolids. He stated on the air that Class A biosolids are checked for indicator organisms such as e-coli and salmonella. Salmonella is not an indicator organism it is an actual pathogen. Class A products such as the compost in question are checked to ensure these pathogens have been destroyed to a level that is safe. Hundreds of thousands of biosolids compost products have been sold for over 25 years nationwide. Most of the people who buy the product are "middle class to rich people" who use the product on their own lawns and gardens. This is not a racial issue - it is clear from Heilprin's reporting he has another agenda since he very cleverly avoids the facts and the very positive benefits of recycling this product. I encourage NPR to conduct its own investigation into this issue and the slanted reporting provided by Heilprin. Millions of gallons of wastewater are treated and cleaned every day to protect public health and the environment. Wastewater treatment is one of the most important advances in protecting public health. Countries that do not have these advanced systems in place continue to be blighted with serious diseases. Biosolids are the nutrient rich organic material that are removed during the wastewater treatment process. Biosolids also undergo a significant level of treatment and testing to ensure their safety for recycling. Heilprin's claims that no one can prove the product is safe are completely untrue. What about all of the wastewater treatment operators who are in contact with this product daily, the farmers and homeowners who have repeatedly used either Class A or Class B biosolids without ever getting sick? Both Class A biosolids and Class B biosolids are equally safe. Class B biosolids have undergone less treatment however use of the product is much more restrictive to ensure its safety. Sure their have been allegations of people getting sick, but when you have the media raising unfounded histeria and promoting false information people get scarred. The true poison is false information perpetuated by biased reporters! I have been working directly with these biosolids products for the past 22 years. I have seen the benefits, I have never been sick from exposure to either Class A or Class B biosolids. I use biosolids Compost 2 times per year in my own yard and garden. Again I hope that NPR and others will investigate the reporting the AP is conducting. So far they have printed two biased stories on "sludge" disregarding true scientific information or balanced reporting. My understanding is they are working on a 3rd report which I'm sure will not be any different. Maybe you and other media groups can rise to the top and uncover the true source of pollution in our post modern society where science is questioned, truth ignored, and misinformation perpetuated...

Thank you.

Rhonda L. Bowen

Sent by Rhonda Bowen | 11:57 AM ET | 04-25-2008

The Sludge of Poverty.

I can't swallow Dr. Klag's take on this story.
This was an 'experiment'conducted on humans, not in a lab, or on animals. He justifies their actions, (in part) by saying that the community was cooperative with the 'study'. Reminds me of what happened in India. Where reps. and scientists from huge corporate, agri-business descended on 'India's farmland where poor families had farmed these sane plots for eons with great care. The 'corporates' extolled their ' magical seed' that would triple and quadruple their yield and farmers agreed to plant it. They were not told of course that the seed was genetically modified and it cross pollinated across the country like prairie fire aberrating crops Once farmers found out, they burned all their fields in horror
at the consequences and were left with no harvest for the year and they all went hungry. Most of these farmers couldn't read but they understood the devastaion they's ' ve faced if they'd allowed this pollination to rage through all of India.

This type of con game goes on with the poor and vulnerable all the time! The "co-operation of the community" which Dr. Klag 'claimed' often means abuse of trust, condescension and endangerment. With full knowledge that the poor are most always incapable of securing legal representation and in many cases can barely keep body and soul together, science and business, position their toxins and experiments in low income social sectors with low visibility- in the fog of poverty. Think of the nuclear reactors and reckless detonations in low income areas where large percentages of people developed cancer and died. Even our own troops in Viet Nam and the Gulf War, in their 'extremis' were subjected to Agent Orange , Napalm and other deadly and hazardous poisons, not only inflicted on the soldiers , but with in perpetuity with potential to cause birth defects in their offspring. The logic was that they'd just court marshall them if they refused exposure, that soldiers would be traumatized from war and would not have the clout to go up against the military as a a whole and Government itself. Many of these 'victims' languish today without care, suffering the ravages of long term deterioration and pain. And now we have iraq.

In Baltimore, there was NO medical follow up on the 'subjects' of the experiment. We don't know who they are or where they are. That no regular medical oversight was provided for them- (as there are NO medical records) and that these people have seemingly vanished without a trace, factually shows that there was little or no concern for their long term welfare and were probably chosen because of they were a more community, were probably renters and as your guest said: These neighborhoods were slated for demolition and they knew this population would scatter. Divide and conquer.Personally think this is reprehensible. Too often the poor and 'minority' populations are viewed like running men from The view finder of a gun ship--small and helpless and easy pickin'.
'Remote' decisions made from outside the community are hardy ever
really for the good of that community in the end.

No doubt, had this same study been proposed in upscale white neighborhoods, (where , yes, there are also lead detections) there would have been hell to pay and the experiment would never have been launched in the first place. These families would have erupted over "little Johnny' playing in the sludge. Bottom line from what was said on your show: there were NO efforts made to conduct this experiment across Baltimore equitably . his was wrong and I think those people should answer for it. This is the kind of thing that started happening in the third Reich. Some fertilizer may seem a long way from those horrific experiments...but is it? WE're not that far away from 1865 or 1965. I remember it. This was bad science AND bad policy- and that policy starts at the top of the food chain with people 'looking the other way'. Just check out the infrastructure of any low income neighborhood in large urban centers, They stack up against tony neighborhoods like favellas in Rio. The white glove test for the upper end hardly applies. Policy allows for this double standard in it's application. The science is the administered dose.

Call it compost, call it sludge but I call it sewage and sewage by any other name stlll smells as ...well you know the rest....They may use it on the White House lawn but surely not in the concentrations that were used for this experiment and anyway, when was the last time you saw George Bush rolling around in it? Children did.

Crane Glen

Sent by crane glen | 5:11 PM ET | 04-25-2008

I realize that the black community is still untrusting of scientists and science research. And this issue has several groups like the NAACP up in arms claiming Tuskegee type issues. What is the main problem? That the recent research was done in those neighborhoods or that the research was done and people were harmed? If people were harmed AND they were not fully alerted to the dangers (I doubt that) AND they were not treated AND the incident was swept under the rug, then there is a point and the anger is justified. But according to the press stories none of these scenarios seem to be the case.

It seems the matter of research can't be addressed objectively among the Black community because of the sensitivity regarding the Tuskegee Experiment. The Tuskegee Experiment was a sad page in history, but let's keep things in perspective. 1. Monitoring the unchecked effects of syphilis in blacks was a meaningful experiment - at that time. Back then, Syphilis was unchecked in everybody and because of racist beliefs, many people really believed that similar treatment in blacks as whites would have been a waste. As sad it is sounds, the doctors wanted to prove (not just provide anecdotal evidence) that Syphilis harms black people just as bad as Europeans. 2. What made the Tuskegee Experiment egregious was the fact that a cure had been found and they did NOT Inform the participants.
Since that case, the laws and ethics of clinical research have improved dramatically. Remember the finding that hormone therapy might be harmful to menopausal women? They pulled that treatment and halted that study. That's how research works now. Also, Institutional Review Boards (IRB) are VERY stringent and serious about critiquing ALL research before ANY experiment is done. They make sure everything is proper and safe and legal. They follow strict federal and state and professional research organizations' procedures and ethics guidelines when conducting ANY research with living subjects, especially human. They err on the side of safety and caution. These Boards are not comprised of a group of like mined scientists who co-sign each other's research. These boards consists of scientists, a doctor or veterinarian, lay persons from the larger community (such as clergy or politicians or teachers or community activist). And you best be sure the university administrators have lawyers look over things for liability as well.

This case is a perfect example of a sensationalized story that was presented to speak to people's fears and ignorance about science or research processes. I understand the sensitivity we have that poor, marginalized people may be being taken advantaged of in research studies. But that fear and the campaign against research is harmful. This is a matter alerts me of the crucial need to increase the public's awareness of science and research. The need to increase scientific literacy among people is not just limited to the marginalized and under-educated, specifically black people. I keep discovering that even presumably well-educated black people are still prone to get keyed up emotionally and are largely ignorant about science and how it proceeds.

Sent by The Urban Scientist | 5:43 PM ET | 04-26-2008

One more thing I want to address - Government funded research does NOT mean government directed research. Scientists develop hypotheses from direct observations. Hypotheses aren't handed down to scientists. This research was undertaken by a team of academic researchers. This was an idea that they developed, perhaps born of real-life issues they were encountering - lead poisoning of nearby residents (who happen to be poor and black). The researchers secured funding to undertake this research - they asked for the money, the governement was trolling around for researchers willing to make guinea pigs out of people.

Sent by The Urban Scientist | 9:09 AM ET | 04-27-2008

While listening to this story I was reminded of a news story I had seen many years ago about lead paint research done on families in Baltimore. The details were fuzzy but I seemed to remember that families with children were put in homes that were known to have lead paint so that the children could be tested for exposure. This sludge story sounded a little too close to that for my comfort.

After a Google search or two I came across a Comcast.net News article that clearly tied the two stories together for me. Of the sludge story it says,

"HUD documents show the study's lead author, Mark Farfel, has pursued several other studies of lead contamination including the risks of exposure from urban housing demolitions and the vacant lots left behind."

And then the connection is made clear with this bit of information,

"Some of Farfel's previous research has been controversial.

In 2001, Maryland's highest court chastised him, Kennedy Krieger and Johns Hopkins over a study bankrolled by EPA in which researchers testing low-cost ways to control lead hazards exposed more than 75 poor children to lead-based paint in partially renovated houses."

The SAME PERSON headed both bits of research. How is that possible? After doing such amazingly heinous research once - how was he allowed to continue to take advantage of poor Black people in Baltimore?

I don't understand how Dr. Klag and others involved in this research can feel justified in defending their actions rather than admitting that they have, again, and again put people at risk without even the courtesy of full information about the dangers of the study they were involved in.

Sent by Fat Lady | 12:08 PM ET | 04-27-2008

It was good science done in a very different way from what one would normally think of it being done. I believe the reporter did not get the facts correct in the story which has led to more confusion amomg the readers of the article about the potential health risks of properly treated and land applied biosolids. As a result of this article more time and resources will be spent in the political, engineering, municipal and science arenas with no benefits derived. This is sad when we need to spend more time on research and education on the land application of biosolids.

Sent by Barry T. Dunkley | 11:40 AM ET | 04-28-2008

correction: the government was NOT trolling for scientists to do questionable research.

But I also recommend people check out the fact sheet about this research posted at: http://www.kennedykrieger.org/kki_news.jsp?pid=7062
There is also a link to the research abstract (or summary) that was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

I took the courtesy of writing a lay summary for those who may get overwhelmed by all of the jargon.

The Abstract - rewritten
High lead concentrations in urban industrial areas are a big problem and can cause many health problems in people, but there is no one program to get rid of lead in soils, unless it is a big nasty spill from a company or factory. So there are many people who are exposed to lead in soil, but there is no feasible and affordable solution at hand. The researchers selected lawns in contaminated neighborhoods where the ground contained a fairly high concentration of lead which can get into the human and animal body systems. They used a commercially comparable compost, organic material from animals, that contained a fairly high concentration of iron and phosphate, and spread it over the lawns. Iron and phosphate can grab the lead in the soil and keep it from getting into the body system of people and animals. Iron and phosphate are also great fertilizers to improve the health and appearance of lawns.

The lawns were tilled, or dug up, and the compost was applied. They sampled the soil in the lawn several times to compare the levels of lead in the soil in various locations in the yard (near to the home vs farther away from the home) and many times over the course of the year. They compared the level of lead before the compost was applied and many times after the application.
At the end of the experiment, the lead concentration that can get into the body was much lower. The lower concentration of lead was more notable at areas closer to the home, where the risk of picking up lead was higher. At the more distant parts of the lawn, the treatment didn't lower the lead concentrations much, but there was always a lower concentration of risky lead in those parts of the yard. Plus, the lawns were healthier and more attractive at the end of the study. This research met its objective of finding a possible and feasible way of reducing lead in soil without having to dig up the whole yard and discard of the contaminated dirt in some undetermined place. This research is particularly important because it may provide an affordable solution to reducing lead poisoning risk in children.

Sent by The Urban Scientist | 3:53 PM ET | 04-28-2008

Some of the previous commentators discuss indicators and what may not be considered as an indicator, specifically Salmonella. I believe that we are discussing composted sewage sludge (biosolids) which was used in the test yards of this black neighborhood; thus the discussion by Lemunier, Francou, et al (2005),which notes the following, may be of interest

-------------------------"Mature biowaste composts may support long-term survival of Salmonella serovar Enteritidis during storage at room temperature. E. coli and L. monocytogenes survival was observed only in 4-week-old composts and never in older composts. Proper composting may prevent long-term survival of E. coli and L. monocytogenes. These results suggest that like composted sewage sludge or manure, domestic waste composts may support pathogen survival. Survival was not related to the physicochemical characteristics of the composts."-------------------------

Additionally, the indicators used in sewage sludge may not accurately reflect the actual levels of viable and recovering microbes. One must remember that for the most part, these indicators are vegetative bacteria that easily succumb to low-level disinfection but within the mix of sewage sludge one finds microbes and pathogens that require high-level disinfection techniques. Examples of these latter microbes are the pathogens found on semi-critical medical devices that are inserted into the rectum and colon and of course these microbes are also found in sewage.

Further, there is some question of the overall validity of the bacterial tests run on sewage sludge in the first place. The concept of viable but non-recoverable (VBNC) is apparently not considered in current standards. There are issues of resuscitation and growth that must be discussed, but which apparently were not considered.

The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) studied this and their document states, "In summary, the body of knowledge to date from a limited number of plants seems to indicate that some plants with a combination of anaerobic digestion and centrifuge dewatering may be experiencing fecal coliform reactivation and/or regrowth."

The WERF document continues--------- "However, it is important to note that the literature to date suggests that anaerobic digestion processes--whether mesophilic, thermophilic, or TPAD--rather than destroying fecal coliforms, may convert them to a viable but nonculturable state, whereby they can be reactivated by centrifuge dewatering but not BFP dewatering. Because the mechanism for reactivation is unclear, it is conceivable that the viable but nonculturable fecal coliforms in the BFP biosolids could also subsequently be reactivated at some point. Thus, low counts in the BFP cake versus elevated counts in the centrifuged cake may not be relevant. Because fecal coliforms are indicator organisms, the "reduction" of which during digestion is assumed to coincide with a reduction to acceptable levels of pathogens, it raises the question as to whether there is really an issue or simply an analytical artifact. Thus, evaluating the direct relationship between fecal coliform regrowth/reactivation and actual pathogenic activity in biosolids is needed."

Whether or not there was or could be growth in the material used on these test yards is now probably a lost question. But since sewage plants have been shown to be generators of antibiotic resistance (Google, for example Amy Pruden's work) the genetic material that confers antibiotic resistance is very robust, it is conceivable that transfer of antibiotic resistance to the inhabitants of these homes was possible. But again, unless there are samples of the material applied, one would never know. Nonetheless, it would have been reckless to assume that such transfer did not take place absent adequate testing and again, it is unclear that such testing did or did not take place. Thus several questions remain unanswered.

(WERF 2006)Understanding Reactivation and Regrowth of Viable and Nonculturable Coliforms
WERF Report 04-CTS-3T
Author(s): Matthew J. Higgins

Biowaste Composts

Authors: M??lanie Lemunier, C??dric Francou, et al

Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 October; 71(10): 5779--5786.

Sent by Dr Edo McGowan | 2:41 AM ET | 05-26-2008

Basically, what we have is a $450,000.00 grant to a testing laboratory, who contracts a contaminated sludge consumer product/hazardous soil study on the health effects of lead, to a School of Public Health, supervised by the EPA/USDA chief sludge salesman, who modify a standard test and pH values to come up with some number that says it will be safe to eat the combination of hazardous levels of leaded soil and a pollutant contaminated sludge consumer product with wood chips and sawdust called Orgro or Eckology. However, they neglected to confirm the assumption.
If the pollutant contaminated sludge compost was not considered to be a consumer product and if it was not used to grow grass, the rules would require the compost to be placed in a permitted landfill. Someone should have read EPA's Biosolids Technology Fact Sheet Use of Composting for Biosolids Management which states it is safe, BUT THERE ARE: DISADVANTAGES
Odor production at the composting site.
In addition to odors, other bioaerosols, such as pathogens, endotoxins, and various volatile organic compounds, must also be controlled. Potential environmental impacts may result from both composting operations and use of the compost product. Survival and presence of primary pathogens in the product.
Composting is not a sterilization process and a properly composted product maintains an active population of beneficial microorganisms that compete against the pathogenic members. Under some conditions ,explosive regrowth of pathogenic microorganisms is possible. Dispersion of secondary pathogens such as Aspergillus fumigatus, particulate matter,other airborne allergens. While healthy individuals may not be affected, immunocompromised individuals may be at risk. The spores of A. fumigatus counts at composting facilities are high, and-- persons handling composted biosolids being exposed to these spores is also high (Epstein, 1998). These organisms can potentially invade a normal, healthy human being and produce illness or debilitation. Lack of consistency in product quality with reference to metals, stability, and maturity.
Dust and airborne particles from a composting operation may affect air quality. The impact to adjacent areas may need to be mitigated and permitted to protect area ecology and water quality, run-off from application sites must be controlled. The potential nitrogen and phosphorus rich run-off (or leachate) can cause algal growth in surface water and render groundwater unfit for human consumption. Organic dust (such as pollen) is another nuisance that must be controlled at composting operations. These contaminants are primarily a concern to workers at the composting facilities and are generally not present in quantities that would cause reactions in most individuals that are not exposed outside of the facilities.
It should be noted that the most plant-available form of nitrogen in biosolids (ammonium ion (NH4 )) is converted to nitrate (NO3 -) by the composting process. Improper use of biosolids can result in the contamination of water resources with leached nitrogen, because nitrate is more mobile than ammonium, and is taken up less easily by plants. For the rest of the story see
http://thewatchers.us/Congress-HUD.html

Sent by Jim Bynum | 12:45 PM ET | 05-26-2008

After reviewing the credential of the sludge experts who signed their names, I have to wonder if the know what a pollunt is and how these pollutants effect public health: Part 503.9(t) Pollutant is an organic substance, an inorganic substance, a combination of organic and inorganic substances, or a pathogenic organism that, after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,inhalation, or assimilation into an organism either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through the food chain, could, on the basis of information available to the Administrator of EPA, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions (including malfunction in reproduction), or physical deformations in either organisms (humans) or
offspring (children) of the organisms.

It would appear that USDA's Rufus Chaney, coauthor of the study, was the assigned Government Technical Representative. Chaney was a metals expert member of the part 503 peer review committee, helped rewrite part 503, and coauthor of the document admitting no human cancer risk assessment was included in the part 503 regulation and was one of the first to prove that leafy vegetable takes up cadmium at dangerous levels. Apparent he neglected to mention the above part 503 section to the other study participants.

Sent by Jim Bynum | 1:17 PM ET | 05-26-2008

Rhonda L. Bowen, the sludge expert of 22 years doesn't appear to know what an indicator organism is. She said, "He [Mr. Heiprin] stated on the air that Class A biosolids are checked for indicator organisms such as e-coli and salmonella. Salmonella is not an indicator organism it is an actual pathogen. Class A products such as the compost in question are checked to ensure these pathogens have been destroyed to a level that is safe."
E. coli and Samonella are part of the EPA indicator group of fecal coliform used for testing sludge biosolids http://thewatchers.us/Fecal_coliform.html and also part of the EPA coliform group uses for testing drinking water http://thewatchers.us/coliform.html
Now, they are all pathogens

Sent by Jim Bynum | 3:04 PM ET | 05-26-2008

Dr. Mark Farfel's study titled "Biosolids compost amendment for reducing soil lead hazards: a pilot study of Orgro amendments and grass seeding in urban yards" says it all.

This was a pilot study for a commercial product called Orgro compost to see if it would help grow grass in lead contaminated soil.

Why HUD used about $450 thousand taxpayer dollars for a commercial compost product pilot study seems to be an illegal use of federal funds to promote and validate additional usages of a commercial product.

Why Dr. Farfel used people in the East Baltimore area instead of using lead contaminated soil on the road side, is another puzzle. His study had nothing to do with people, there was no health assessment prior to the study, no blood levels drawn to see if the study would reduce blood lead levels. Nothing.

So, again, why was the study conducted in a residential neighborhood if the residents were not given the same consideration and assessment prior to participation in a study as lab rats?
A prior study "Reducing Children's Risk from Lead in Soil by James Ryal et al, tested the rats prior to feeding them the soil, lead and sludge.

Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board should really take another look at their review process. It was easy, good money--but did anyone think to test the compost prior to use for pathogens? The EPA and the sludge industry knows that pathogens regrow in sludge amended compost as well as in Class A an B sewage sludge; so, why did'nt Dr. Farfel test for pathogens?

Sent by Nancy Holt | 4:04 PM ET | 05-26-2008

The intended product of wastewater treatment is clean water. Sewage sludge is the inevitable byproduct that, by definition and intention, consists of every waste material a given wastewater treatment plant is capable of removing, or is incidentally removed, from the sewage in the process of treating the wastewater. This means that, besides human urine and feces, tens of thousands of chemicals-organic and inorganic, teratogenic and carcinogenic, toxic and estrogen mimicking-will be present in the sludge.

The wastewater treatment industry and the EPA's preferred method of disposal of sewage sludge in the United States is "land application." To get the public to accept this has required a concerted effort from government and the sludge-industry to make the public think that sludge is "organic," "nutrient-rich," and otherwise "beneficial." Calling sludge "compost" is another trick. The idea of "composting" sludge is based on the dependable presence of human feces in sludge. Human feces do indeed consist largely of organic matter. But sludge consists only partly of human feces.

The idea, therefore, of "treating" sludge so that it can become "compost," a "soil amendment," a "fertilizer"-is disingenuous. Once mixed together, the potential value of each and all of the materials concentrated in the sludge is lost. No "treatment" of sludge can "purify" the human excrement: once mixed with poisons, it too becomes a poison. Calling Baltimore sewage sludge "compost" is linguistic detoxification and nothing more.

What should be done? Put sludge in bags of neat looking pellets to sell as "compost" to unwary gardeners? Put it on Little League ball fields? Don't mention the poisons and instead call it something like "ORGRO High Organic Compost" and see what happens when kids eat it? That will get rid of some of it -- and it will take a long time for people to come to understand what happened to them.

What can be done to protect our health, our children's health, our pets, livestock and wildlife? First, start telling the truth about sludge. Next place an immediate moratorium on the land application of sewage sludge.

Sent by S. Bruhl | 1:06 PM ET | 05-27-2008