Port Stanley Foodland
BRENDA CREEDEN RE/MAX Sales
Port Stanley Festival Theatre 2018 Season
Century 21 First Canadian Corp
Jeff Yurek, MPP
Mackies, Port Stanley, Ontario
  • More Letters -
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • - 100 available.

Port Stanley News RSS Feed  Letters In reaction to the recent letter by Dr. Sibley et al. on land applied sewer sludge

by Don Vincent
In reaction to the recent letter by Dr Sibley et al on land applied sewer sludge

Take a look at the Canada Water Network - http://www.cwn-rce.ca/assets/resources/pdf/Annual-Report/CWN-AnnualReport-EN-2015.pdf an organization with substantial funding (see Partners section) from various Sewer Sludge Industry players (Sylvis, N-Viro etc). This organization uses its money to fund research in Universities on "biosolids" ... now I ask you ... would you expect research on the safety of tobacco, funded by Big Tobacco Companies to be accurate, objective and uncompromised? No you would not! So here too - we can have no faith in outcomes from these institutions and scientists who are NOT arm's length from the industry. THEY HAVE A VESTED INTEREST !! FOLLOW THE MONEY.

The recent letter, written in defense of using sewer sludge on farmland is written by scientists who receive funding by the Canada Water Network. The letter that came out originally, questioning the folly of land dispersal of sludge, was written by 4 scientists with NO connection to the industry. Now, which would you be inclined to believe?

Dr. Sibley begins his letter with this great insight: we all produce poop so we need to take responsibility for it. True, but not the point. So-called "biosolids" are not just poop - it is a concentrated residual of everything cities pour down their drains and sewers - all kinds of toxins.

Indeed, the EPA (from which Canada took its lead when making its rules around using sludge on land) allows sludge that is up to 99% industrial waste to be called "biosolids" as it still contains 1% human waste. Does Sibley think spreading this toxic residual thinly throughout the environment, where it can enter the food-chain, is taking responsibility for it? Why on earth would we put these toxins back into the environment after we just worked so hard to get them out of? Folly indeed.

There are greener methods of using this "resource" - gasification / pyrolysis will rid us of the toxic burden and provide energy to the grid. Let's get on the right side of history like other enlightened countries have, and provide a cleaner, safer environment for the next generation. Spreading contaminants throughout the countryside is not taking responsibility for our cities' pollution, it is merely shoving the problem onto the rural population.

Yours, Don Vincent


Last Updated: Thursday, 11 August 2016 13:07:31 PM EST

Follow Us

Monday, December 11, 2017 | | Welcome Guest !

World's 1st Proportional Viewing News Web Site. February 5, 2008. Copyright © PortStanleyNews.com

Copyright © 2004 - 2017 Port Stanley News.com All Rights Reserved ISSN 1718-8695