[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: updated flyer on chicken ban - important

  Do you have the sewage fact packet from the Environmental Research
  Foundation? Cost about $7. In the packet, there is information from
  CCHW, confirmed by one of the xeroxed articles that identifies what
  Cornell University researchers have found in sewage sludge (a.k.a.
  According to CCHW and researchers at Cornell University and a report of
  the American Society of Civil Engineers, the following substances are
  typically found in sludge:
  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); chlorinated pesticides; chlorinated
  compounds including dioxin (TCDD), dichlorobenzene, trichlorobenzene,
  tetrachlorobenzene, chloraniline, dichloroaniline, dichloronaphthalene,
  tetrachloronaphthalene, trichlorophenol, pentachlorophenol,
  chlorobiphenyl. There are polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons such a
  chrysene, benzo(a)pyrenes; heavy metals including antimony, arsenic,
  cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, thorium, uranium,
  vanadium and zinc. There is bacteria, viruses, protozoa, parasitic worms
  and fungi.  And, there are also: flame retardents (asbestos), petroleum
  products, industrial solvents, iron, gold, nitrogen, phosphorus,
  potassium, and calcium.
  It is my understanding that this sludge has been linguistically
  detoxified and relabeled so it could be sold to unknowledgeable
  consumers as an organic, non-toxic, fertilizer given such an earthy name
  as <biosolids> .  There are zero regulations on fertilizer in the U.S.
  and minimal regulations on sewage sludge --biosolids.
  I read an old article recently that is in a waste trade journal, SOLID
  WASTE & POWER.  The Aug., 1991 article is entitled **COMPOST PRODUCTS
  According to the authors: In 1989, the USEPA published proposed sludge
  regulations that addressed the land application, distribution, and
  marketing of any products derived from sewage sludge including
  composts.  Apparently, the EPA's proposed regs established maximum
  allowable exposure limits for pathogens, heavy metals, PCBs, and organic
  The authors are the president and recycling specialist with a company
  specializing in solid waste management, composting, land application,
  product marketing, facility design, and recycling. They said that this
  did not go over well with a peer review committee in 1990 which deemed
  the environmental and health risk analysis used to establish the
  regulations as <<overly restrictive.>> 
  The authors write:  **...[T]he regulations would make it very difficult
  to land apply or distribute and market the sludge-derived compost
  product that met EPA's standards...**
  After reading RACHEL's #553 which reviews the book _TOXIC
  DECEPTIONS...How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the
  Law, and Endangers Your Health_, it is not surprising what EPA has done:
  **...[O]ne realizes that the purpose of the regulatory system is not to
  protect human health and the environment. The purpose of the regulatory
  system is to protect the property rights of the corporations, using
  every branch of government to thwart any serious attempts by citizens to
  assert that human rights should take precedence.  "At the most
  fundamental level," write Fagin and Lavelle, "the federal regulatory
  system is driven by the economic imperatives of the chemical
  manufacturers--to expand markets and profits--and not by its mandate to
  protect public health."(pg. 13) **
  Susan Snow
  Jon Campbell wrote:
  > Hi, folks,
  > Please see the newly-revised flyer on the chicken ban, at
  > http://www.cqs.com/chicken.htm
  > It contains a warning about 1 ppt not being an "acceptable"
  > level of dioxin contamination, and also contains correct
  > math with respect to the "tainted" chickens - they have
  > 100 times the amount of dioxin found in typical chicken,
  > not 40.
  > Thanks and regards
  > Jon Campbell