[USCC] Vol 30, Issue 6--response to Frank and Dave.

[frank]

Edo,

>You note that----IF THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH (TOXINS REMAIN) THERE NEEDS TO BE ANOTHER METHOD OF TREATMENT FOR THE FEEDSTOCK TO BLAME BE IT YARD WASTE, MANURES OR BIOSOLIDS.-----Firstly, allow me to assume that when you mention TOXINS, you also mean all contaminants, especially pathogens and the genetic material that makes them such, that is my area of interest. 
>
No! I mean toxins - things that show toxicity.
Microbes, metals and any organic compound that has shown toxicity and is 
in concentrations to be considered at a risk.

>Secondly, those in composting are relying on a feedstock that is presumed to have been adequately reviewed by those sending them this material. That, I think, is how the process was designed to work. BUT THOSE DESIGNING THE SYSTEM OFTEN EITHER DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WERE DOING OR THEY PURPOSEFULLY DESIGNED IT TO NOT LOOK AT SOME THINGS. In either case, as it turns out, what the compost industry has for years been receiving has been bad information on feedstock. You have been living in an inadvertent fiction.  You need, however, to discuss this with those that designed the system, not me for pointing this out. But I doubt that those that designed the system would now admit their complicity in this and would thus instead attempt to shift blame. If you want an expanded background on this, I will discuss it in another post.
>
>  
>
Not true. We all know the feedstock the composter receives has lots of 
real proven toxins - all feedstocks. It's what the composter sends out 
that is important.


Frank



-- 
Frank Shields
Soil Control Lab
42 Hangar way
Watsonville, CA  95076
(831) 724-5422 tel
(831) 724-3188 fax
frank at compostlab.com
www.compostlab.com