Sludge- DON*T USE IT!

Michael L Roginsky d_micro at ix.netcom.com
Fri Mar 8 17:17:56 EST 1996


In <DnJxCp.H3t at cix.compulink.co.uk> ecoli at cix.compulink.co.uk ("K N and
P J Harris") writes: 
>
>Sludge - sea dump it.
>Sorry to disagree but however toxic the sludge is, it makes more sense

>to dump it at sea than to land spread it. It is a simple matter of 
>arithmetic - work out how much water the planet has in its oceans and 
>then work out how much fertile soil there is by volume. There is 
>something like a million times more water. Because of the cuddly
animal 
>syndrome (baby seals and all that) and the fact that people have a
vague 
>notion of "clean water" they are readily persuaded that polluting the 
>soil (there is no concept of "clean soil") is a better option.
>The best option, but costly, is not to have the toxic sludge in the 
>first place. The technology would drive up the price of goods and the 
>necessary legislation would put some dirty producers out of business
but 
>in the end the consumer would save the money they pour into cuddly 
>animal charities and the cuddly animals could be left to look after 
>themselves.No more need for photo-opportunities with BB !
>
>Peter Harris,
>Department of Soil Science,
>University of Reading, UK.
>
Sludge use for land fertilization has been a topic of hot debate for
over 20 years. Los Angeles ships sludge the Antelope Valley farmers
that grow onions and other produce. My belif is to use common sense:
sludge filled with toxic pollutants will pass on to the produce,
especially heavy metals. It should be tested before use. It it contains
haz mats then it shouldd be destroyed by the approved procedures. A lot
of toxins can be reduced harmless by incinerations, others require
storage in underground vaults, mostly from salt mines. We store a
considerable amount of fuel in old salt mines for national emergency
use. The ocean has From: d_micro at ix.netcom.com(Michael L Roginsky )
Newsgroups: bionet.plants
Subject: Re: Sludge- DON*T USE IT!
References: <XqXqzAABcIMxEwcX at jackomg.demon.co.uk> <DnJxCp.H3t at cix.compulink.co.uk>

In <DnJxCp.H3t at cix.compulink.co.uk> ecoli at cix.compulink.co.uk ("K N and
P J Harris") writes: 
>
>Sludge - sea dump it.
>Sorry to disagree but however toxic the sludge is, it makes more sense

>to dump it at sea than to land spread it. It is a simple matter of 
>arithmetic - work out how much water the planet has in its oceans and 
>then work out how much fertile soil there is by volume. There is 
>something like a million times more water. Because of the cuddly
animal 
>syndrome (baby seals and all that) and the fact that people have a
vague 
>notion of "clean water" they are readily persuaded that polluting the 
>soil (there is no concept of "clean soil") is a better option.
>The best option, but costly, is not to have the toxic sludge in the 
>first place. The technology would drive up the price of goods and the 
>necessary legislation would put some dirty producers out of business
but 
>in the end the consumer would save the money they pour into cuddly 
>animal charities and the cuddly animals could be left to look after 
>themselves.No mortaken as much as it can process before passing it on
to ourselves.     Micro.



More information about the Plantbio mailing list