[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

lead-contamination.in.soil

Article 22027 of rec.gardens:
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Subject: Lead from Paint
From: jim.mcnelly@gcbb.granite.mn.org (Jim Mcnelly)
Path: samba.oit.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!uum1!gcbbgw!gcbb!jim.mcnelly
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <36.470.2552.0N41B8F9@gcbb.granite.mn.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 93 00:00:00 +0600
Organization: Granite City BBS 612-654-8372 hst 656-0678 v.32bis
Lines: 72

Ebf@Cbnewst.Cb.Att.Com to All - Sunday, August 29th:

on August 29, 19 92 Discussing: Lead from Paint

E>Message-ID: <CCHH1u.9tz@cbnewst.cb.att.com>
 >Newsgroup: rec.gardens
 >Organization: AT&T

E>My VERY old house was power washed 2 years ago,
 >and lead paint made its way into the soil

E>Tomatoes are growing within 6 feet of the house --
 >is it possible for the plants to take up the lead
 >from the soil and  deposit the lead in the tomato fruits?

E>Is there a way to cheaply test for lead concentration
 >in the soil or in the tomatoes themselves?

There is no inexpensive test for lead concentration in soil that I know
of. Water is a different matter, but soil no. The cost is in the setting
up and preparation of the sample. Once set up, it is easy to test for
additional heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, chromium, etc. I would
expect the test to run upwards of $200.

There are two levels of lead of concern, Parts Per Million (PPM) and
extractable, or leachable lead. The EPA hazardous level for lead is 5000
PPM, the leachable level is 5. There is virtually no chance that your
lead is in a leachable form since it is from paint, so there is no point
even running the leach test.

Background lead levels will run from 50 PPM up to 250 PPM. Soils near
traffic areas will typically be high around 500 PPM from lead from
gasoline. Even with the lead removed, it is still in the soil from years
ago. Lead does not typically migrate and it certainly does not decay
into something else. Once it is there, it is always there.

Lead limits in sludges and compost are set at either 500 PPM or 1000 PPM
before the sludge must be landfilled rather than used beneficially. Even
more of concern is the total pounds of lead added to the soil per acre,
since compost and sludge are diluted with the topsoil, but accumulate
over years.

There is little to do with lead contaminated soil other than to remove
it and bury it somewhere where it will not erode or grow crops, such as
a landfill. From paint sources, the lead will typically be in the
surface few inches as it is a large element and does not migrate
through the soil quickly. If you scraped off the old soil a few inches
deep, where the paint was or accumulated, you will have removed most of
it. Send it to a conventional sanitary landfill, possibly a demolition
fill. Do not spade or till it into the soil, as that only makes for more
topsoil that must be removed.

Lead does not readily accumulate in plants. Its problem comes in root
vegetables where it is adhered to the root as a part of the topsoil. The
more serious problem is children eating lead paint chips or the soil
itself, a phenomenon known as the "pica" syndrome. Lead can also be
breathed as a dust, and surprisingly, the skin absorbs lead quickly.
Much has been made of lead in drinking water. So the pathway to the body
is direct, rather than secondary through plants.

I hope this information helps.

Mr Compost~~~


Jim~~~

Granite Cities BBS 612-654-8372-HST 654-0678 v.32bis

e-mail jim.mcnelly@granite.mn.org
---
 * August 30th - Sure, when... OINK FLAP OINK FLAP... Well I'll be damned!



 


Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:29:28 -0700
"Tony C. Tweedale" <es__act@SELWAY.UMT.EDU>
Re: cleaning products
To: Multiple recipients of list BIOSPH-L <BIOSPH-L@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu>

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992, Rumen with a View wrote:

> C. Hanlon has requested info on cleaning compounds.  Perhaps someone out there
> can enlighten me as well.  There seems to be a common perception "out there"
> that commercial detergents are less environmentally friendly than old
 fashioned
> cleaners that grandma used, like borax.
>
> Most commercial soaps are primarily sodium lauryl sulfate or
> similar fatty acid salts.  Since medium chain fatty acids are easily
 metabolized
> by microbes, the primary ingredients don't strike me as being particularly
> threatening.
>
> Borax, on the other hand, is a reasonably toxic element for mammals.
> Acceptable maximum tolerable levels for domestic animals:
>
> boron        150 ppm
> selenium       2 ppm
> mercury      2-3 ppm
> strontium  2,000 ppm
> chromium   1,000 ppm
> cadmium       0.5 ppm
> manganese    400 ppm (swine)
> uranium      400 ppm (rats)
>
> These numbers are subject to other mineral interactions and species variation.
> However, I don't know of anyone who would suggest washing clothes in uranium
> salts even if it were an effective cleaner.
>
> Lyle Rode
> Nutritionist
> Agriculture Canada

a reply:

synthetic detergents were at one time composed largely of branched long
chain "fatty acids". bugs could not eat their way around the side chains
and so the detergents did not degrade (does that cause a nutrients
problem--i guess not, that's due to inputs of phosphor in the cleaning
agents?).

and what about these new citrus oil solvents that are meant to be super
effective, ie can be used to replace industrial strength solvents eg
methylene chloride, cfc's, toluene, etc. (down w. chlorine!). i understand
they are terpene molecular units that do the cleaning (ie are the reactive
molecule in the formulation). take it they are similar to old fashioned
turpentine. degradable? toxicity (chronic, acute)?
Article 4010 (44 more) in misc.rural:
From: Bob Kyweriga <bobk2@cfsmo.honeywell.com>


Subject: Aquaculture
To: misc.rural
Message-ID: <9210221557.AA19563@pserv.CFSMO.Honeywell.COM>
Posted-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 10: 57:48 CDT
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Sender: daemon@src.honeywell.com
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 1992 15:57:48 GMT
Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 10: 57:39 CDT
Lines: 14


        I've been informed that some people are having
        difficulty in reaching the list server for AQUA-L.

        If you cannot reach

        LISTSERV%VM.UoGuelph.CA@VM1.NoDak.EDU

        you might try

--MORE--(96%)

        LISTSERV@vm.uoguelph.ca



End of article 4010 (of 4016)--what next? [npq] From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU Wed Mar  2 23:04:18 1994
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 14:19:27 -0800
From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" <sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L <SUSTAG-L@WSUVM1.CSC.WSU.EDU>
Subject: Sustainable AQUACULTURE (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 1994 09:54:00 -0800 (PST)
From: KrisList <KrisList@csi.msm.cgnet.com>
To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu
Subject: Sustainable AQUACULTURE (fwd)



To:      DANIEL ABED-NAVANDI <ABEDDANI@zoo.univie.ac.at>

From:    Kris Kerrigan, CGNET

Subject: Sustainable AQUACULTURE



Daniel,

For more information about aquaculture, you may wish to contact the
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM)
in Manila.  Their e-mail address is  ICLARM@CGNET.COM.  The postal
address is

     MC P.O. Box 1501
     Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines


Good luck,


Kris Kerrigan
CGNET