[USCC] Continuing Response to and by The Rubins, et seq from Edo McGowan

[Edo McGowan]

Continuing Response to and by The Rubins, et seq from Edo McGowan


To Al Rubin and all his followers. My comments on his latest posting.

Al, hope your hiatus until 9 Sept is a productive and pleasant one. In the interim,
I will continue compiling my work. Unfortunately, I have not received any reply to my question of how large a file the list-serve might accept. You and presumably those within your following want an answer. This is not a simplistic issue that a thirty-second sound bite will handle. It is a highly complex issue that warrants considerable work and thus attention---if the answer is really wanted.  

I do appreciate your frank response to my questions indicating that, in fact, EPA had not done work on antibiotic resistance or off-site movement. Thus from this response it is clear that those within high-level management from the Office of Water including one of the 503 authors, noted that EPA had not addressed critical deficiencies raised in the 2002 NAS/NRC report and here we are almost at the close of 2006. In the interim, there are continuing reports of illness. You yourself have noted that you got 4 to 5 such reports a day and that your desk was stacked with these reports of illness. In spite of this major flaw and lack of data, the agency had continued to promote land applied sewage sludge as safe. The question that then follows---has EPA some special knowledge that obviated the serious inquiry into these areas? The ancillary issues then are as follows 1) lack of data on transferred genetic information between pathogens, thus the issue of resistance combined with virulence, and 2) the interaction of chemicals and other irritants in the response to pathogens (see Gatti & Lewis). These questions are especially poignant since there are deaths and serious illnesses attributed to sewage sludge and the WHO had some time ago raised the issue of antibiotic resistance to the level of a global crisis.

Al and followers, as to my side of the bargain, the question that you have raised (show me the dead bodies) has, absent some consideration on file size acceptable to the list-serve, been more than amply answered by others. In light of that and for me to spend time away from my other pressing activities seems pointless, especially if those within your following are unable to grasp the significance within these existing peer-reviewed documents. That being the case, it is doubtful that I would add anything the apparent void in understanding. Nonetheless, as I said, I will continue my effort and give you my answer. You and your following will have my answer in due course if there is some reasonable guidance on allowed file size and if I can address a very complex question within such constraints. In the interim, I would suggest a reading of the existing record. For starters, I would suggest a careful read of the comprehensive and peer reviewed paper produced by Caroline Snyder, entitled The Dirty Work of Promoting the Recycling of Americas Sewage Sludge, as easily found via [http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Snyder.pdf.].

Al, as an aside, you should read this work as you are prominently noted within this peer reviewed paper’s discussion. 

Additionally, since you indicate that there have been no documented cases where sewage sludge was connected to illness, you may find that NIOSH had amply demonstrated illness from sludge. That review, however, did not consider the interactions between pathogens and chemical irritants, nor did it to my knowledge, address antibiotic resistance. 

In addition, other peer-reviewed papers have demonstrated illness associated with sewer sludge and its application to land. The peer reviewed work by your old colleague at EPA, Dr. David Lewis, and his papers with Gatti, et al., as well as in the peer reviewed works by Dr. Harrison and her shop at Cornell all provide examples. Thus some of the data were there for a long time, yet as you say EPA did not know and, evidently EPA saw no advantage to taking the NAS/NRC recommendations seriously. 

I was going to also supply some background on the above comments to put some of this into a wider perspective. On January 21, 2003 – at a special meeting on biosolids before the Solano County Board of Supervisors, you gave some answers that appear to be at odds with your current stance. Unfortunately, whether the list-serve would allow these to be posted remains an unanswered question.  Until these questions are answered, the absence of open communication may prove unfortunate because it applies directly to the issue of dead bodies and your question. 

Cheers-------------------Edo 
edomcgowan at earthlink.net