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

Re: Help! Model Ordinances, Direct Marketing Farmer Surv

Dear Sheryl,

With regards to my post to you, Mr. Walker wrote:
> The above constitutes specifically legally actionable slander, libel,
> direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything remotely
> resembling facts.

Let's see...I wrote to you that:

> Are you aware of the kind of compost being peddled by Clarence W. Walker and others? 

> Not all compost is alike!  Certainly, what we make at home is probably the best, especially if we are not
> using sewage sludge or mixed municipal solid waste.  
> 
> However, those on Clarence's list, Wastenot, are peddling far more
> than clean, environmentally safe compost.  One peddler-activist
> claims:
> ''...We develop systems and produce compost from sludge, septage,
> > mixed MSW, restaurant and carwash trap waste, animal waste
> > by-products, and yes even landfill leachate...creosote,and a wide 
> > range of PAH's, chlorinated and halogenated hydrocarbons including
> > PCB's, dioxins, VOC's have all been in the mix...''

[snip]
> Furthermore, some creative persons are looking to compost radioactive 
> wastes, pulp and paper mill waste, oil and gas wastes including
> normally occurring radioactive material.
[snip]

Whom am I slandering, libeling, telling direct and specific lies, and
'gross distortion of anything remotely resembling facts'?
I did not say who said what. I simply shared one statement which was
made by one individual on Mr. Walker's list. I quoted whas he said 
without mentioning his name or company. 

Nor did I say that was in Mr. Walker's compost.  I don't know what is in
his compost. I have not ever once reviewed a test result of Mr. Walker's
compost; reviewed his standard; reviewed the contents of his compost;
reviewed any product that he has produced; even once looked at, tested,
or touched a single product that he has distributed. Moreover, I did not
recall having said that I did.

I said: 
> There is some good information on sewage sludge (a.k.a. biosolids) in
> chapter 8 of the book, Toxic Sludge is Good for You.  Chapter 8 is
> entitled The Sludge Hits the Fan and is located at
> http://www.envirolink.org/issues/sludge/sludge.html

I said:
> > Since you are at Cornell, I suggest you also read The Cause for
> > Concern at http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/  You will need the Adobe 
> > Reader to download it in it's PDF form. The report compares 
> > standards around the world and discusses the problems with the US
> EPA regulations
[snip] 

> that protect industry but not public health.'

Does that constitute: ''..specifically legally actionable slander,
libel, direct and specific lies, and gross distortion of anything
remotely resembling facts''?

Perhaps, I should have stated that '' the US EPA's regulations that
protect industry but not public health'' was my opinion. After all,
EPA's risk assessment only looks at some of the toxic metals.  It does
not look at PCBs, dioxins, and the other some 70,000 plus mostly
unregulated chemicals.  Nor does it look some of the chemicals linked to
fish downstream from sewage treatment plants producing a protein that
only female fish are said to produce.  Scientists tell me said fish and
other species are become intersexed, from some of the manmade chemicals
released into the environment that may be coming from sewage treatment
plants.  Yet, these chemicals are unregulated; not considered in the
risk assessment. Nor do the regulations look at the multiple effects
that combinations of known and unknown chemicals may be causing; the
effects to multiple generations.  Absence of data is considered a null
in risk assessment...I understand.  Therefore, they are ignored.  If
they are ignored, how can EPA's regulations be protective of public
health?

  Mr. Walker said that:

> Ms Snow, as the owner of the WASTENOT list I am reluctantly forced by
> your lack of professionalism to disclose that you were removed from
> the wastenot list specifically because of your activities such as the
> above.Whereas others in the environmental recycling community are
> actively interested in and supportive of raising the arts and sciences
> of composting and working together for the good of all you seem to be
> obsessed with negativity and obfuscation.
[snip]

I know of two other persons that have been removed from Wastenot because
their verbalized viewpoints conflicted with those being promoted.  If
this a lie, what is the truth?

In fact, a secret admirer who generally does not post statements to the
list is forwarding me the digests.  Within the September 26, 1997
digest, I learned that one person said he was asked by Mr. Walker to:

> find out the "environmental community's" opinion
> about composted sludge. This is what I have found.
> 
>      The environmental community has been waiting
> for Cornell Waste Management Institute to issue its
> report on sludge land application. That report has
> actually now been issued (actual publication date August,
> 1997). The report, about 35 pages long is located at
> http://www.cfe.cornell.edu/wmi/PDFS/PDFS.html
> and it's recommendations are very similar to the
> Dutch standards, with lower limits for a few metals.
> 
>     The principle used in the Cornell recommendations
> was the prevention of accumulation, over long term,
> beyond current background limits.
> 
>      The report is extremely critical of the EPA's
> methodology for determining the Part 503 regs,
> citing numerous studies.
> 
>       During the next few months, the environmental
> community will be reviewing and studying the
> Cornell report and the reports on which it is based,
> and make decisions about when/where/how to
> proceed. It is obvious that many current applications
> and many processes are creating "fertilizers", composts,
> and dry mixes that are far above even the Dutch
> standards, and those will be undoubtedly challenged.
> 
>        There are upwards of 10,000 community environmental
> organizations in the U.S. alone. During the last 10 years, they
> have been primarily responsible (sometimes with the backing
> of local and federal laws) for the closing of 90% of the landfills
> in the U.S. and the virtual standstill of the incinerator industry.
> 
> These organizations act completely independent of each
> other, but look to advisory organizations for guidance.
> The organizations look to Cornell Waste
> Management Institute for reports on sludge,
> composting, etc.
> 
> So there is the answer, which is close to what I expected,
> essentially the Dutch standards.
[snip]

Will this individual be eliminated from the list?  After all, Mr. Walker
told him:

> I can't believe you would do this. Meanwhile I have heard nothing
> from any of the groups you purport to represent or others of the
> recycling/environmental industry or associations that you had
> mentioned bringing for discussion. This posting is reflecting the same > party line and lack of consideration that has exhausted everyone's 
> patience.
> Desist.
[snip]

So, you see that although, I don't know this person, there are others on
the list that share my point of view.  Does that mean that I have been
lying?  It appears to me that those who peddle the ideas of composting
questionable materials do not want to hear from people concerned about
the potential quality or health problems due to their products or about
conflicting viewpoints.

If I was banished from Mr. Walker's list for my unprofessionalism in
sharing this quoted information with you, my banishment is the cart
before the horse.  For I had not shared information learned on the list
with others on the outside previously; and certainly, I had not
mentioned names of companies or their owners.

I suggest that my banishment and delisting was because of my concerns
and cited information.  

I support composting vegetable matter be it food wastes and/or yard,
garden, agricultural (and other vegetative) wastes. I also support using
animal manures to help heat up the process and hence kill weed seeds,
and pathogens; as well as add nitrogen and other nutrients.  I am
opposed however, to composting other fractions of the waste stream such
as sewage sludge (a.k.a biosolids), landfill leachate, cartrap wastes,
etc. 

Unless I hear back from Mr. Walker again, I will not bother you with
refuted statements.  

Susan Snow



  




 
 



 Is this really reflective of
> the good work of the many of us in the environmental, recycling,
> composting, agricultural community who are trying to work along posive
> lines? I think not! Please try to stick to the truth...even if the  > truth doesn't always seem to serve your seemingly nefarious ends.


> --