NOVEMBER 2016 • COUNTRY LIFE IN BC
35
Biosolids from the Lower Mainland being spread on grasslands outside of Clinton. (Tom Walker photo) They may be helping to restore habitat but are biosolids really safe? by TOM WALKER
CLINTON – John Lavery, a biologist and agrologist with SYLVIS Environmental, enjoys making a point by chewing range grass growing on land that has been treated with biosolids. But is he dancing with the devil?
Can scientists detect trace elements of chemicals that are deemed harmful to humans and animals in treated biosolids? Certainly. Does that mean that the biosolids are toxic?
Two ibuprofen after a day of digging in the garden are not toxic; they make me feel a lot better. However, a full bottle of Advil would be toxic and might cause me serious harm. “Presence is not equal to impact,” says Dr. Lynda McCarthy, a professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biology at Ryerson University, speaking in Vancouver in early September. Dr. McCarthy provided an overview of findings of the literature review, Risks Associated with Application of Municipal Biosolids to Agriculture Lands in a Canadian Context.
The literature review is a 250 page report on the study of 1000 sources that address the biosolids question. It’s available on the Canadian Water Network site.
“It covers every question we could possibly imagine,” says McCarthy, a former federal scientist who specializes in ecotoxicology.
The truth is we humans have a lot of chemicals in our environment. Scientists have come to label them ‘Emerging Substances of Concern,’ or ESOCs.
When you sit in your car, your butt is encased in Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR’s). We don’t want that
PROVEN FEED EFFICIENCY We aim to help your boom line!
ww cee
r.ca w.bhrfod
BCHA President Murray Gore 604-582-3499
BCHA Secretary Janice Tapp 250-699-6466
seat to burst into flames during a vehicle crash but if you ate a car seat, it might not be very good for you.
When biosolid treated soils from the OK Ranch were tested, they found BFRs at a concentration of .000008%. The dust that you breath in your car is likely to have 1,000 times more concentration. When you brush your teeth, you have a 1% solution of antimicrobial compounds such as Triclosan in your mouth – one of the reasons they tell you not to swallow. OK Ranch soil has .00002% Triclosan.
Can some of these
substances make their way into the grass that Lavery is
eating? McCarthy says no. In a study she has just completed, Assessment of Ecological Impacts and Characterization of Priority Emerging Substances of Concern, she grew plants in six different samples of municipal biosolids from across Canada. Then she sent the plant tissue to be analyzed.
“None of the plant tissues had taken up any of these organic compounds (ESOCs),” she concludes.
The overall question McCarthy and her team set out to answer was: does the mere presence of biosolids in the environment equal adverse impact to living biota? Their conclusion after four years and working
through 1,000 scientific studies was “land application of biosolids at provincially regulated rates is a very sustainable strategy.” McCarthy says she
approaches a study like this expecting to find an impact. “My job is to get harmful substances out of the environment,” she says. As a researcher, she found
The Sham:
BC Government Biosolids Review The opening paragraph of this document sets the stage for everything that
follows: “Biosolids are treated and stabilized wastewater treatment residuals ... largely beneficially re-used as a soil amendment in agriculture or other applications, including landscaping and site reclamation.” This is PR speak – not science! The bias is palpable. This is not an objective look at relevant science regarding risks associated with the disposal of sewer sludge. When a review puts forth only documents which support a pre-determined outcome, it is propa- ganda. This review is nothing more than a cherry-picked summary of articles that
2016 Corn Silage Trial Results available soon
FARMWEST MEMBERS WILL BE NOTIFIED
PFCA BOOKS MAKE GREAT GIFTS! Advance Silage Corn Management
•
Cool Forages - Advanced Management of Temperate Forages •
Residual Feed Efficiency Research 1350 Hereford bulls tested in past 4 years
support government and industry agenda. There are many scientists who argue disposing of a city's toxic sewage on farmland presents a serious threat to human health. Their research was not included as it individually and collectively raises red flags concerning the practice of land disposal of sewer sludge. Go to
www.biosolidsbattleblog.blogspot.ca to see a selection of overlooked peer-review articles.
Biosolids in the Nicola Valley
As predicted, the contaminants of real concern were not even examined in the government’s sampling project: superbugs, prions, nanomaterials, microplastics, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, (PBDEs) and flame retardants (PBDEs). Doing so would not support their pre-determined outcomes. This is key to understanding why this government decided to relegate First Nations participation in this study to “observer” status. The Chiefs wanted input with objective, arm’s-length scientists at the table. The government could not allow that! The Chiefs had no option but to leave this biased project.
A few observations on Minister Polak’s Press statements Minister Polak proudly states the government is raising the safety limits on two contaminants in biosolids. Two! Out of the tens of thousands of toxins known to be in all biosolids, yet there is no mention of all those other worrisome contaminants. She claims environmentalists around the world are in favour of dispersing toxic sewer sludge on farmland. How, then, does she explain that the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Rodale Institute, the National Farmers Union, The Suzuki Foundation and hundreds of other environmental, health and farm organization as well as food processing companies like Heinz and Del Monte, oppose using “biosolids” to grow our food?
For more information, visit
www.biosolidsbc.com
the study frustrating. “All I see is no impact. No journal wants to publish a paper with no impact,” she jokes. “I’m out of funding.” “We need to develop an honest national biosolids dialogue,” says McCarthy. “We can shut down pulp mills and manufacturing plants, we can get rid of cars, but humans just keep on pooping.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
