This might be a good time for our new Mayor to step up to the plate. If she will take seven loads in her backyard, I’m sure the residents of Wright Creek will feel much safer knowing she is comfortable with it in her back yard. This is WRONG!!

Had that been a native blockade. I think this would be a completely different outcome.

“I have worked my ass off to get the road gravelled and level…”

I don’t understand how someone could believe that gives them the right to destroy the watershed?

And what’s with the answering of questions with questions? What are we? Grade 2?

I get the distinct impression that the city knows this stuff is not safe but they’ve decided that the best approach is the “out of sight – out of mind” one. Let our future generations worry about it. I thought we had outgrown that mentality?

The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment are currently engaged in a discussion of land application of sewage sludge biosolids. You are not alone in your opposition! Our ongoing 12 year resistance in the Ottawa area is summarized in our submission to the CCME consultation at http://www.box.com/s/4mtj27o2vzstvrcfzh1h

I wonder if they have ever bothered to test peoples’ shallow wells that have been in close proximity to fields treated with this sludge before, or if the comment about never seeing an incident of leeching in his 10 years is just a comment he can make because no one has done any testing.

Destroy the watershed???? There is no evidence this will happen. From what i read the City has taken every legislative step and hiring environmental professionals to be able to use this bio-solid. What is the alternative fertilizer to use? Is it any safer? Do you not see signs on peoples lawns that warn you of fertilizer recently applied? When you buy fertilizer from the store do they not have to give you a instructions on how to safely use it.

Communities all over North America use this bio-solid stuff with great results.

Right on doogood. Has anyone got any real evidence of biosolids being applied anywhere that did any harm? I haven’t seen anything.

Or is this just another case of a bunch of people getting their knickers in a knot for nothing?

Yes, Johnny, heaven forbid we question authority. We all know how right these experts are all the time. Just ask the farmers in Rosebud, Alberta about how right the experts were there. Its about the dollar, has always been about the dollar, and will continue to be about the dollar until enough people get sick of getting pushed aside so some can make money at others expense.

residents could be charged,

How about stop treatning and doing something about it, pretty soon we won,t be able to do anything, if there is a handfull of people opposed to something they can stop it. bad example. If these people can prove there is something wrong with this stuff, then prove it,I seen this stuff applied,haven,t seen anything wrong with it.

This stuff is worlds apart from the lawn fertilizer you buy at the hardware store.

http://deadlydeceit.com/pathogens_infectious_proteins.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/029504_organic_biosolids_toxic.html

http://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/biosolids.html

etc. etc. etc.

I want to see the city dump this stuff on city property. If it’s so harmless why aren’t they?

“Their neighbours fear elements in the bio solids will either leach into the ground water or somehow end up on their properties.”
We have been told that the bio solids will not end up on the adjoining properties. How can that be said, as hundreds of migratory birds will be landing in our areas shortly, pick around on the bio solids for long awaited food, deposit their bird fertilizer now combined with bio solids fertilizer everywhere, play in local streams and lakes then take off to the next stop on there way home to their nesting grounds. Which by the way maybe in your back yard or lake. Oh… and the bears and other wild fife emerging this spring will be traipsing across the bio solid field onto the adjoining properties chasing the geese 
Then when on the migratory path home in the fall they stop again and feast on bio solid areas and some poor hunter eats it for dinner .

They don’t buy the explanation from the experts that the bio solids are not harmful, especially when land where the “grade B” bio solids have been applied has to be marked with warning signs that advise people should not eat above ground crops from the property for 18 months, and below ground crops for 36 months.

“He advised the 20 residents who attended the meeting, that no harm would come to their cows or horses if they ingested hay grown on this property.”

Maybe not any harm will come to the critters, but I for one will not be eating beef or other meat that has been raised around bio solids. I also have researched that sheep will be harmed if exposed to this grazing or hay.

“The application plan has been approved by the Ministry of the Environment, the Health department and the Agricultural Land Commission. Laverly says Northern Health has no record of any health issues ever arising from the application of bio-solids. One resident suggested that is because the health problem may not have been reported, and if a person went to a doctor, may not have related the health issue to living near bio solids.”

And has there been long term studies, or air advisory warnings available

Good idea – let’s go back to third world standards and get rid of the treatment plant altogether. Just run the pipes straight into the river. That is as “natural” as you can get…

Why do all people who seemingly don’t like to hear anyone complain or be concerned about anything that we are told is good for us, always going to the extreme. If you are against the northern gateway pipeline, then you are nothing but a hyprocritcal treehuggin hippie who shouldn’t be driving a car because it runs on gas. Or in this case, if you are concerned about the biosolid issue, then we might as well go ahead and dump in right in the river…as if there can be no middle ground. And they call us unreasonable..hmmphh.

“Good idea – let’s go back to third world standards and get rid of the treatment plant altogether. Just run the pipes straight into the river. That is as “natural” as you can get…”

Third world standards? Raw sewage gets dumped into the ocean daily in this province. Is anyone arguing in favour of that? Not that I’ve seen. What we’re against is the dumping of toxic sludge onto the land.

As I figured, a couple of people see me as being in favour of dumping the biosolids. I am neither in favour or against. I just asked a couple of simple questions. Is there any evidence of contaminated water due to biosolids? Yes or no?

As someone noted, we have come to a point where a couple of people with concerns can pretty much stop anything. Whether those concerns are valid or not is another issue.

Why can’t they just dump it at Northwood and have it incinerated with the hog fuel… who’s making money off this stuff anyways?

Controversial subject for sure, but what about the pharmaceutical byproducts present in manure from animals treated with antibiotics and other drugs? Standard manure is spread without a thought as to what it might contain. Just sayin’.

“Or is this just another case of a bunch of people getting their knickers in a knot for nothing?”

It may be. We really do not know. The jurry is still out. Long term studies will typically show what happens.

Unless we raise livestock, such as chickens, pigs, etc. on feed taken from fields fertilized with processed municipal waste and feed that livestock to a large population base of say 100,000 for a period of 20 years or so, and compare that to a control group, we will not have epidemiological evidence to suggest that this is safe or not.

So, in the interest of science, just as is the case with air particulates, which is adjusted every few years with new evidence coming in, we need a compliant group of people willing to live under these circumstances.

We know people in PG fit that bill from past actions or inactions by the MoE, the City and industry.

I have an idea why dont they dump the stuff on City parks add a little grass seed and maybe our psrks would look differnt then just a place for weeds to grow.Our boulevards could stand some of the same treatment.
cheers

This is what our neighbours do.

US Environmental Protection Agency
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/biosolids/upload/fr2-19-93.pdf

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/soy-plants-accumulate-drugs-antibacterials-from-biosolids

That is a synopsis of an experiment conducted a couple of years ago. The primary objective appears to have been to see whether plants, such as soybeans in this case, uptake pharmaceutical residues found ion both biosolids and wastewater. The biosolids were laced with some of the phamaceuticals to achieve this.

The results were that in fact the plants did take up the pharmacetuicals and were taken to the level of the green shoots more than the roots.

Of course, this was not a study on how much was present in the plants with normal processed biosolids.

The thing that get me about his is that it states this was the first such experiment.

So, it is with ease that bureaucrats can respond that they have been no problems cited in the NIH region.

One needs to pressure them with more detailed questions to find out what their knowledge base level about this process actually is. I doubt it would be extensive.

I am sure Christy Clark would have something to say about this————————————maybe not.

It seems obvious that the sludge will be deposited on the Richard and Richard Arnett Farm, despite the objections of neighbors and concerned citizens. We are at the third week of February, the ground is frozen, how will the Arnetts go about tilling the sludge into the soil?
As far as I can surmise, the sludge will have to be stockpiled until the fields are dry enough for equipment to travel across them.
In the meantime, how will the Arnetts prevent sludge runoff as the snow starts to melt?
There is always a certain amount of snow melt that runs across the land until the soil is thawed and soft enough to absorb water. It happens every spring. At the meeting last fall the expert said this sludge (well, he called it bio solids) had to be tilled into the field, mixing with the existing soil, this was his explanation as to how the dried sludge would not be blown away by winds, or washed away by heavy rain.
Winter stock piling was not discussed at this meeting, as far as I know.
For the sake of the Arnetts’ health, I hope they do not have to stockpile the sludge next to their home.
By the way, I don’t believe anyone is getting paid here, either to accept the sludge, or to haul it away (other than truckers) The Arnetts probably figure to save money on fertilizer by spreading this sludge on their lands. By doing so, they will reduce the cost of their hay production. I don’t agree with the process, and feel that the Arnetts are, in the long term, gambling with their own health, and that of their neighbors.
Heres a little thing to think about:
When you buy your beef, pork, lamb at the grocery store or butcher shop, do you know where the animal grazed? Do you know if it was fed hay or grain grown on sludge fertilized fields? Are you the next link in the chain?
metalman.

Do these people have septic tanks, septic fields, or lagoons?? Are they not worried about these systems leaching into the ground?

The bio-solid stuff i am willing to bet is far more treated than those systems.

Just to show how recent some of the information is on a practice that has been going on for a couple of decades in other parts of the world, here is a document from the USA EPA issued in 2011 of the standard that should be used when evaluating Human Health Risk of Pathogens in land-applied biosolids.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=231964#Download

That smell that hangs around for ONLY a month would be from a component of bioaerosols generated by the action of humans and weather on the applied biosolids.

It is not just the ground water; not just the uptake from plants; not just the tracking of soils into houses, cars, etc.; it is also the air breathed by those close to the field application.

the sludge is taken from the grit chambers, primary sedimentation tanks and from the biofilters.

The sludge is then pumped to the digesters where is stays there for 15-60 days (controlled operating conditions), depending on the design of the reactor.

Once done, it gets dewatered further for ease of transport. The city has centrifuges do the de-watering, before dropping into the dump truck.

Go for a tour of the plant and see it yourself.

“The bio-solid stuff i am willing to bet is far more treated than those systems.”

You fail to understand that the biosolids are a concentration of ALL matter that comes into the municipal treatment centre whether it is waste from the human digestion process or ANY human activity.

Some of the products are inactivated through the treatment process, others are not. Everything that goes into the sink, bathtub, shower and toilet bowl ends up at the treatment plant. Everything that does not get separated out in industrial processes gets sent to the same treatmnet plant.

So, not only are the biosolids more concentrated than the private sewage treament facilities, but they are virtually totally uncontrolled.

The only control there is, as I understand it, is some sort of sampling test of the finished product that gets sent out.

So, where does the human and mechanical error come into play?

1. failure of the test as a control mechanism

2. failure of the risk assessment by the scientific community in determening the risk to humans

How do we determine whether a failure has occurred?

1. One or more people get sick – however, source of the pathogen will not likely be determinable unless it happens numerous times fom people with the same associations. Even then, it typically takes a long time and many cases before doctors will arrive at a proper association.

2. long term studies of community health profiles find abnormal levels of particular health problems and, after much deliberation on causation someone will consider biosolids as the causative factor or a major causative factor.

Until then, we need to go with what we as humans feel comfortable with. What we have is a number of people who do not have a good comfort level with biosolids. Their fear is real. It is the human factor in all such instances.

It is no different than the Haldi Lake Rd. situation, the bottle depot situation, the 400 seat nightclub situation, the air quality situation and many others that divides the community. We all fear different things. And, all those fears are real as far as those individuals who have those fears are concerned.

The sooner we learn that and learn how to deal with it in less than a Gestapo-like manner, the better our society will become.

“If you are against the northern gateway pipeline, then you are nothing but a hyprocritcal treehuggin hippie who shouldn’t be driving a car because it runs on gas. Or in this case, if you are concerned about the biosolid issue, then we might as well go ahead and dump in right in the river…as if there can be no middle ground. And they call us unreasonable”

Now you’re getting it ;-)

That’s a good summation Gus.
metalman.

“If you are against the northern gateway pipeline, then you are nothing but a hyprocritcal treehuggin hippie…”

Of course, it works both ways.

If you are for the nothern gateway project, you’re portrayed as an environment-killing corporate stooge who must be on the take.

But I digress. Are we at the point where anybody who raises any concern should be able to stop anything? Where do we draw the line?

I would not put much faith on the EPA, here is an example on how it works.

http://junkscience.com/2012/02/22/showdown-at-the-epa-corral/

“I would not put much faith on the EPA”

Now there is something I did not expect from you Seamutt …. LOL

The whole thing sounds like a crock of “bio-solids” to me.

Just trying to educate.

“I am sure Christy Clark would have something to say about this————————————maybe not.”

If she decided to say something she would declare that this is a municipal matter. It’s up to the municipality to make the decision to dump the stuff – after getting advice from other levels of governments as to whether there are ANY health and environmental concerns which would prohibit it.

Public concern and opposition do not have to be addressed and allowed to influence the final outcome.

It’s made out to be harmless fertilizer, so has anybody at city hall tried to dry it, bag it and export the stuff with a colourful label to countries where human waste is used ALL THE TIME to grow crops, some of which can be found on the shelves of some of our grocery stores?

“But I digress. Are we at the point where anybody who raises any concern should be able to stop anything? Where do we draw the line?”.. more like at the point where lots and lots of people who raise concerns are ignored. When there is a huge outcry on something such as the HST or northern gateway.
We don’t like hearing our elected officials telling us these things are a done deal regardless of what people think, such as HST, or being labled an enemy of the state or a fanatic such as in the norther gateway, if you happen to be someone who doesn’t agree with the proposal.

But: “more like at the point where lots and lots of people who raise concerns are ignored.”

Hardly. There are nimbys everywhere and in the ongoing effort to try and please everyone, you end up pleasing nobody. Which is what is happening in this case.

At the end of the day, what can the city do instead, and everyone will be happy with?

Seems more constructive to me then complaining without a better solution in hand.

It seems like many people on here think that this is the first load of this stuff being spread on farm land, this goes on in many countries around the world all the time.I wonder how many ton of the stuff is spread on how many acres? with the test on this stuff one could figure what the change in the soil would be,as far as sheep not being able to pasture on land where this is spread,if it has any copper in it it will kill sheep,but this is the same for land where pig manure is applied

Okay people, how quickly we forget.

Read this article form June 2011 entitled “The global resurgence of infectious diseases”
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2749484.html

It starts off this way:

“Despite all the medical advances and breakthroughs in research, immunisation and medical treatment over the last half century, we still remain extraordinarily vulnerable to infectious disease.

“In fact infectious diseases are undergoing a global resurgence that may very well threaten everybody’s health and security over the next few decades.”

It then goes to the quality, or lack thereof of agricultural products eaten by people and speaks of an outbreak of a particularly virulent strain of e-coli, supposedly in Spain or Germany.

It then goes on with:
“We now know that Spanish vegetables are not to blame, but the damage has already been done, and Spain is contemplating pursuing legal action against the German authorities.

“Perhaps the current outbreak might be connected to the increasing use of biosolids in agriculture a subject which is currently raising some concerns in Australia” (the site is from Australia)

Then this:
“Gastrointestinal infections have also had a spectacular rise over the last decade as our production, storage and preparation of food products has become increasingly sloppy”

So, mix sloppy food handling with sloppy farming and sloppy biosolid processing, and we get problems we have not had for some time.

I suppose the positive side of all this is that it keeps world population in check.

Continuing to look at Autralian views of biosolids, I find this to appease those opn here who ask that we come up with other solutions.

From this site
[url]http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php[.url]

In Australia and New Zealand, biosolids have been used for:
• Co-generation/power production/energy recovery
• Land application in agriculture (vine, cereal, pasture, olive)
• Road base
• Land application in forestry operations
• Land rehabilitation (including landfill capping)
• Landscaping and topsoil
• Composting
• Incineration
• Landfill
• Oil from sludge (experimental).

Other uses overseas include:
• Bricks and construction material
• Vitrification (glass manufacture)
• Bio-fuel
• Fuel substitute (cement works)
• Additive to road base
• Jewellery

Only smells for a month? Just how long do the residents have to put up with the smell?

cbc.ca titles their story as “sewage used as fertilizer”. We here in PG call it “bio- solids”. Oh my! What’s in a word, eh? How would the Chinese government handle this?

So, when was the treatment plant built down below Cowart Road? I will tell you it was many years ago.

So what have they done with this sludge over the years? This is not a new problem, it is just one that has been brought to the attention of everybody today. Apparently, years ago, nobody gave a $#!+!!

Tests of the biosolids Arnett plans to use on his land show high levels of copper. His soil tests high for zinc, so no new zinc- containing waste should be applied, since both zinc and copper at these levels can be toxic to plants and animals after repeated biosolids application.

Many commentators still do not realize that biosolids is not just domestic human waste. Sewage contains industrial chemicals; thousands of them, many of them hazardous, and very year a thousand new chemical compounds enter the waste stream. Most end up, concentrated, in the resulting sludge or biosolids.

Absent any credible science that supports land application, a well-funded lobbying group for those that profit from this practice resorts to marketing strategies. Unless we call their bluff, they will continue to spread the myth that putting sludge on farmland is beneficial, sustainable, and safe. If you want facts, rather than myths, visit
http://www.sludgefacts.org