Today's Topics:
An open reply to Rachel #561: Sewage Sludge
An open reply to Rachel #561: Sewage Sludge -Reply
Fwd: Call for Papers, AWMA 1998 Conference in San Diego
Help Cut Timber Subsidies
job openings
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <greenyes@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <greenyes-Digest-Request@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to postmaster@ucsd.edu.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 14:31:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: C2ALTS@aol.com
Subject: An open reply to Rachel #561: Sewage Sludge
I know that many on this list are subscribers to RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT &
HEALTH WEEKLY as I am. I forwarded #561 to my brother Dan Cloak, an engineer
working in waste water and am sending his reply. Unfortunately I seem to
have deleted the original newsletter so can't copy it here. You can contact
Peter Montague at
.. Environmental Research Foundation .
.. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .
.. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net
Dan Cloak says:
The trouble I have with the alarmists like Peter Montague is that they
usually don't acknowledge that they have a strong personal and financial
interest in touting environmental and public health dangers. We have
learned about supposed toxic dangers of our water supply from the folks who
sell us water filters and bottled water. Similarly, Montague's fundraising
pitch follows his disingenuous article about the supposed toxic threat from
recycled municipal sludge. Chemophobia is such an easy sucker-bet that the
tobacco industry is now selling "no additive" cigarettes.
A hint of where Montague's politics are coming from can be seen in the
statements that municipal governments are "powerful interests" (this would
certainly surprise mostly Democratic big-city Councilmembers and staff
desperately trying to maintain services in the face of Gingrich budget
cuts) and that the EPA has "extraordinary power." (Where are the black
helicopters?) The attack on the Water Environment Association -- misstating
the organization's previous name and revising the date of the name change
-- impugns the motives of thousands of professional members, from sewage
treatment plant operators to engineers, who work in sewage treatment. The
suggestion that these workers routinely falsify data is likewise noxious
and wrong. I guess anyone who actually works professionally in pollution
control has to face Mr. Montague's attempt to proclaim guilt by
association.
The citations in the article show that Montague has read the literature --
so one can only conclude he intends to mislead his audience on the
technical facts.
For example 40 CFR Part 503 is cited, but the article doesn't describe the
7-year process of research, review and comment that lead to EPA's final
promulgation. Limits on heavy metals concentrations were, in most cases,
based on the most conservative possible assumptions about ingestion, plant
uptake and potential health effects. Under Part 503, allowable application
rates are strictly controlled.
Industries discharging to municipal sewers do so only under individual
permits that specify allowable concentrations of heavy metals. Since this
program started in the early '80s, heavy metal concentrations in the
influent of plants serving industrial cities (e.g. San Francisco, San Jose)
has decreased by about an order of magnitude, and metals concentrations in
sludge have decreased accordingly. It's fairly easy to predict increases in
metals in sludge-amended soils; the target concentrations are marginally
above background levels.
The stuff about mutagenicity and unknown toxics is suggestive, but far
from showing any actual or realistic potential health threat.
After thorough technical review, the National Research Council, EPA, and
nearly all environmental groups reached consensus on the 503 regs, which
have greatly improved regulation and documentation of sludge reuse.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 15:28:40 -0500
From: Pete Pasterz <Pete.Pasterz@USDWP.MSU.EDU>
Subject: An open reply to Rachel #561: Sewage Sludge -Reply
I was very disappointed that the following discourse from Dan Cloak used
the same tactics
that he accuses Peter Montague of; that is guilt by association and
impugning motives. If
Dan is a Pollution control professional, he certainly also has a strong
personal and financial
interest in touting the line that all such professionals are ethical and act
so in the discharge
of their duties, and never intentionally (or mistakenly?) "falsify" records.
I think his venturing
into motives of an individual is equally as dangerous, and his comparisons
to the actions of
big tobacco--the proven liars who profit from death--is appalling.
Cloak implies "guilt" by Peter Montague due the association that he works in
an organization
that raises money through donations. Should I read this to mean that all
such "alarmists"
(activists?, researchers?, scientists?, journalists? concerned citizens?)
are motivated by
earning the donation dollar? Does this happen? Probably. At a higher
rate than in other
sectors, such as govenment or corporations where the financial incentives
are higher?
Probably not. Is Peter Montague guilty of this? I have no way of knowing,
and neither does
Dan Cloak.
Pete Pasterz
Dan Cloak says:
The trouble I have with the alarmists like Peter Montague is that they
usually don't acknowledge that they have a strong personal and financial
interest in touting environmental and public health dangers. We have
learned about supposed toxic dangers of our water supply from the folks who
sell us water filters and bottled water. Similarly, Montague's fundraising
pitch follows his disingenuous article about the supposed toxic threat from
recycled municipal sludge. Chemophobia is such an easy sucker-bet that the
tobacco industry is now selling "no additive" cigarettes.
A hint of where Montague's politics are coming from can be seen in the
statements that municipal governments are "powerful interests" (this would
certainly surprise mostly Democratic big-city Councilmembers and staff
desperately trying to maintain services in the face of Gingrich budget
cuts) and that the EPA has "extraordinary power." (Where are the black
helicopters?) The attack on the Water Environment Association -- misstating
the organization's previous name and revising the date of the name change
-- impugns the motives of thousands of professional members, from sewage
treatment plant operators to engineers, who work in sewage treatment. The
suggestion that these workers routinely falsify data is likewise noxious
and wrong. I guess anyone who actually works professionally in pollution
control has to face Mr. Montague's attempt to proclaim guilt by
association.
The citations in the article show that Montague has read the literature --
so one can only conclude he intends to mislead his audience on the
technical facts.
For example 40 CFR Part 503 is cited, but the article doesn't describe the
7-year process of research, review and comment that lead to EPA's final
promulgation. Limits on heavy metals concentrations were, in most cases,
based on the most conservative possible assumptions about ingestion, plant
uptake and potential health effects. Under Part 503, allowable application
rates are strictly controlled.
Industries discharging to municipal sewers do so only under individual
permits that specify allowable concentrations of heavy metals. Since this
program started in the early '80s, heavy metal concentrations in the
influent of plants serving industrial cities (e.g. San Francisco, San Jose)
has decreased by about an order of magnitude, and metals concentrations in
sludge have decreased accordingly. It's fairly easy to predict increases in
metals in sludge-amended soils; the target concentrations are marginally
above background levels.
The stuff about mutagenicity and unknown toxics is suggestive, but far
from showing any actual or realistic potential health threat.
After thorough technical review, the National Research Council, EPA, and
nearly all environmental groups reached consensus on the 503 regs, which
have greatly improved regulation and documentation of sludge reuse.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 12:41:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: CRRA@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Call for Papers, AWMA 1998 Conference in San Diego
<< Greetings!
>
> I write you as Chair of the Air and Waste Management Association's
> Integrated Waste Management Technical Committee (WM-1) to invite you to
> submit an abstract for the next AWMA annual meeting, next June 14-19, 1998
> in San Diego. The conference usually attracts about 7,000 environmental
> professionals from around the world, and features the latest advances in
> the science, policy, regulation, prevention/control, and management of air
> and waste. All papers in the meeting (usually over 1,000) will be
> published on CD-ROM. Our committee usually sponsors seven or so half-day
> sessions on subjects within the following three broader topic areas. The
> conference session categories have not been finalized (per AWMA's new
> flexible policy), but the very broad "topic" areas, meant to stimulate any
> worthy paper in our broad areas of interest include the following:
>
> 271 Integrated Waste Management, Prevention, Reuse, Recycling,
Recovery
>
> 272 Municipal/ Medical Waste Management, Laws, Regulation
>
> 278 Modeling, Composition, and Analytical Techniques in Municipal and
> Medical Waste including LifeCycle
>
> Of greatest importance for authors to remember if you would like to
submit:
>
> 1. The abstract deadline: September 23; (they can send you the form)
> Fax AWMA: 412-232-3450, Email: byunk@awma.org
>
> 2. Fill in one of the above three numbers as the 1st choice for Session
> Topic; fill in another one of these as second choice if applicable.
>
> 3. Select paper delivery preference as Platform
>
> If you have questions or are interested in submitting an abstract, please
> let me know (or AWMA) and the one-page form can be sent to you. If you
> would like to circulate copies of the abstract form in your organization
or
> conferences or meetings you will be attending, please feel encouraged. I
> look forward to seeing your abstract.
> __ __
> //\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
> // \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
> // \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
> \_// \_//
> Marjorie J. Clarke
> Environmental Scientist and Consultant
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm
> New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
>>
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu (Ann Schneider)
Reply-to: aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
To: mclarke@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu (Marjorie J. Clarke)
CC: joeltodd@cpcug.org, skumatz@ix.netcom.com, psu1@msg.ti.com,
berg@erds.ecalgary.ca, johnguice@dp.doe.gov, thsmith@wbnlaw.com,
rachelsea@aol.com, cenyc@webspan.net, kuglera@grove.ufl.edu,
Annette.Frahm@metrokc.gov, ahershkowitz@nrdc.org, bplatt@ilsr.org,
k-and-k@panix.com, daduncan@dttus.com, gruder@engr.wisc.edu,
beling.christine@epamail.epa.gov, davis.mark@epamail.epa.gov,
dallaway@harding.com, mff@igc.apc.org, eric.nelson@metrokc.gov,
jmason@mrt.ciwmb.ca.gov, tcronin@mrt.ciwmb.ca.gov, testes@mrt.ciwmb.ca.gov,
cathy.moeger@pca.state.mn.us, sheila.davis@sen.ca.gov,
shelley_billik@warnerbros.com, wehrmd@mail.state.wi.us,
efriedman@state.ma.us, winter@informinc.org,
cch1@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu, bwprr@cnct.com, dclqc@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu,
altresi@aol.com, TRASHBUSTR@aol.com, dloring@email.gc.cuny.edu,
ECDM@PDOMAIN.UWINDSOR.CA, ryane@ci.sj.ca.us, goidel.eunsook@epamail.epa.gov,
crc@cnt.org, greenyes@ucsd.edu, EarthGB@aol.com, hcole@igc.apc.org,
hshaner@aol.com, ottman@is.nyu.edu, inwrap@aol.com, franklin@qni.com,
lynchm@metro.dst.or.us, mlerner102@aol.com, michele@raymond.com,
imperato@prc.org, mobbsey@gn.apc.org, paul.smith@moea.state.mn.us,
WRLCE@jazz.ucc.uno.edu, reid.lifset@yale.edu, stessel@eng.usf.edu,
richard@edf.org, Suryrl@hantsnet.hants.gov.uk,
caroline.brimblecombe.p&t@norfolk.gov.uk, LVengr@aol.com, slogin@fwenc.com,
s_hammer@ix.netcom.com, sustamer@sanetwork.org, tsiegler@sover.net,
Tom.Watson@metrokc.gov, walfrej@aol.com, WEBrawer@greenmap.com,
wwpub@worldwatch.org, GreenClips@aol.com, waste@cedar.univie.ac.at
Date: 97-09-05 06:21:56 EDT
Thanks for the alert:
It's a shame that your conference is one month later that the
California Resource Recovery Association's annual conference that is
also being held in San Diego (May 3-6, 1998). The theme of our
conference is "Building Bridges" with other partners to achieve
environmental goals like Zero Waste. If you are interested please
contact Gary Liss, Executive Director at crra@aol.com.
Ann Schneider
Chair, Repair, Resale and Reuse Technical Council of the CRRA
aschneid@cats.ucsc.edu
>
> Greetings!
>
> I write you as Chair of the Air and Waste Management Association's
> Integrated Waste Management Technical Committee (WM-1) to invite you to
> submit an abstract for the next AWMA annual meeting, next June 14-19, 1998
> in San Diego. The conference usually attracts about 7,000 environmental
> professionals from around the world, and features the latest advances in
> the science, policy, regulation, prevention/control, and management of air
> and waste. All papers in the meeting (usually over 1,000) will be
> published on CD-ROM. Our committee usually sponsors seven or so half-day
> sessions on subjects within the following three broader topic areas. The
> conference session categories have not been finalized (per AWMA's new
> flexible policy), but the very broad "topic" areas, meant to stimulate any
> worthy paper in our broad areas of interest include the following:
>
> 271 Integrated Waste Management, Prevention, Reuse, Recycling, Recovery
>
> 272 Municipal/ Medical Waste Management, Laws, Regulation
>
> 278 Modeling, Composition, and Analytical Techniques in Municipal and
> Medical Waste including LifeCycle
>
> Of greatest importance for authors to remember if you would like to submit:
>
> 1. The abstract deadline: September 23; (they can send you the form)
> Fax AWMA: 412-232-3450, Email: byunk@awma.org
>
> 2. Fill in one of the above three numbers as the 1st choice for Session
> Topic; fill in another one of these as second choice if applicable.
>
> 3. Select paper delivery preference as Platform
>
> If you have questions or are interested in submitting an abstract, please
> let me know (or AWMA) and the one-page form can be sent to you. If you
> would like to circulate copies of the abstract form in your organization or
> conferences or meetings you will be attending, please feel encouraged. I
> look forward to seeing your abstract.
> __ __
> //\\ //\\ _ _ _ o _
> // \\ // \\ ({_}} {{_}} {{_}} || //_\\
> // \\// \\ ^ // // || \\__
> \_// \_//
> Marjorie J. Clarke
> Environmental Scientist and Consultant
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/index.htm
> http://everest.hunter.cuny.edu/~mclarke/moodyblu.htm
> New York City Phone & Fax: 212-567-8272
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 07:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Kirkpatrick" <david@kirkworks.com>
Subject: Help Cut Timber Subsidies
>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>TO: All Forest Activists
>FROM: Sean Cosgrove
>DATE: Sept. 3, 1997
>
>
>SENATE VOTE EXPECTED SOON
>NATIONAL CALL-IN DAY SET FOR FRIDAY
>
>
>The Senate is quickly moving toward a vote on the Bryan amendment.
>This vote is expected as early as Tuesday or Wednesday. The Bryan
>amendment will eliminate purchaser credits, cut funding out of the
>roads budget for deficit reduction and protect roadless areas. The
>Bryan amendment is supported by environmentalists and fiscal
>conservatives across the country for protecting wildlife habitat, water
>quality and eliminating taxpayer subsidies to logging corporations.
>
>Meetings with Senate staff are continuing but there are many Senators
>who remain undecided on their support for the Bryan amendment. Now is
>the time for your Senators to hear from you.
>
>To help build support for the Bryan amendment we have planned a
>National Call-In Day for Friday, Sept. 5. Please help by contacting
>your Senators and urging them to support the Bryan amendment.
>
>Call toll-free at 888/723-5246 or 202/224-3121 to reach the Capitol
>Hill switchboard. Ask the operator to connect you to your Senators.
>
>
>Based on a meeting with White House staff last week and other
>discussions, the Clinton Administration is still undecided on their
>support for the Bryan amendment. The Administration also needs to hear
>from activists that they should support Senator Bryan's amendment to
>protect roadless areas and eliminate logging road subsidies. Please
>contact these key Clinton Administration officials and urge them to
>support the Bryan amendment:
>
>Sec. Dan Glickman, US Department of Agriculture
>Phone: 202/720-3631 Fax: 202/720-2166
>
>Katie McGinty, Council on Environmental Quality
>Phone: 202/456-6224 Fax: 202/456-2710
>
>T.J. Glauthier, Office of Management and Budget
>Phone: 202/395-4561 Fax: 202/395-3888
>
>Sean Cosgrove
>National Conservation Coordinator
>Western Ancient Forest Campaign
>_________________________________
>1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300
>Washington, DC 20005
>Phone: 202/879-3193
>Fax: 202/879-3189
>wafcsean@igc.apc.org
>
Alert courtesy of:
>
>==========================================================
>Roger Featherstone -- Director
>GrassRoots Environmental Effectiveness Network
>A project of Defenders of Wildlife
>PO Box 40046, Albuquerque, NM 87196-0046
>(505) 277-8302 fax:(505) 277-5483 e-mail: rfeather@defenders.org
>check out our web page at: http://www.defenders.org/grnhome.html
>(All other GREEN staff remain at our Washington, DC, office)
>==========================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Sep 1997 07:19:48 -0700
From: Myra Nissen <myracycl@inreach.com>
Subject: job openings
We are looking for a truck driver to handle a N. CA recycling route and
a receptionist for a small office at a recycling company in Oakland.
If you are interested please contact Theresa at 510-873-8777
Myra
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
Before the 503 regs, 60% of California's municipal sludge was landfilled.
Increased beneficial reuse of sludge has brought enormous environmental
benefits. Reused sludge preserves landfill space, improves soils, reduces
water use, reduces the use of chemical fertilizers, and reduces energy used
in dewatering and transporting sludge. The money saved from reduced
processing costs goes back to consumers or supports other environmental
programs.
However, this environmental success story does not generate contributions
for Mr. Montague's organization. Thus the need for disinformation. It'll
get him some donations -- the same way some folks will buy those
"no-additive" cigarettes.
Connie Cloak
C2: Alternative Services
758 Pine St.
Santa ROsa CA 95404
707/573-9808
fax: 575-6866
email: C2ALTS@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: (null)
From: (null)
Before the 503 regs, 60% of California's municipal sludge was landfilled.
Increased beneficial reuse of sludge has brought enormous environmental
benefits. Reused sludge preserves landfill space, improves soils, reduces
water use, reduces the use of chemical fertilizers, and reduces energy used
in dewatering and transporting sludge. The money saved from reduced
processing costs goes back to consumers or supports other environmental
programs.
However, this environmental success story does not generate contributions
for Mr. Montague's organization. Thus the need for disinformation. It'll
get him some donations -- the same way some folks will buy those
"no-additive" cigarettes.
Connie Cloak
C2: Alternative Services
758 Pine St.
Santa ROsa CA 95404
707/573-9808
fax: 575-6866
email: C2ALTS@aol.com
------------------------------
End of GreenYes Digest V97 #215
******************************