The article stated that in Seattle, toxic heavy metals, chemicals and radioactive wastes are being recycled as fertilizer and spread over farmers' field nationwide--and there is no federal law requiring that they be listed as ingredients.

The issue came to light in the central Washington town of Quincy, population 4,000, when Mayor Patty Martin led an investigation by local farmers concerned about poor yields and sickly cattle [see WA Free Press "Poisoning Ourselves: Toxic waste in fertilizer" Mar 2003 --Ed]. Unfortunately, at this time the use of industrial waste as fertilizer ingredient was a growing national phenomenon.

At that same time in Gore, Oklahoma, a uranium-processing plant got rid of low-level radioactive waste by licensing it as liquid fertilizer and spraying it over 9,000 acres if grazing land. And at Camas, Washington, lead-laced waste from a pulp mill was hauled to farms and spread over crops destined for livestock feed. While in Moxee City, Washington, dark powder from two Oregon steel mills was poured from rail cars into silos at Bay Zinc Co. under a federal hazardous waste storage permit. Then it was emptied from the silos for use as fertilizer. The exact same material.

The Federal and State Governments encouraged this kind of recycling, which saved money for big industry and conserved space in hazardous- waste landfills. However, the substances found in recycled fertilizers included cadmium, lead, arsenic, radioactive materials and dioxins. The wastes came from incineration of medical and municipal wastes, and from heavy industries.

Because I happen to run the newest state permitted medical waste treatment plant in California, and am acutely aware of the hazards of treating such waste, I ask: Why isn't this recycled fertilizer brought up now in the case of Mad Cow Disease. Why did are Federal and State Government allow such contamination and why did the farmers do this to their own land? Who is covering this up? Who benefited from this travesty? Who approved this in the first place? And why isn't anything being done to those who allowed this to happen to our nation's heartland?

I for one want answers. And I want those responsible for this to be brought to justice. They deliberately poisoned our nations food chain for profit, and should be punished as traitors to the American people.

Karl Niemiec, Director of Media Services, Sanitec West, CA

This more the reason to buy local so one can ascertain the source of one's food...
The Significance Of Buying Local Food
100 Mile Diet - Local Food Recipe For Health
Chris Gupta
http://tinyurl.com/253ass

Chris Gupta
http://tinyurl.com/253ass
See also: Re: Mad Cow disease & pesticides (Organophosphate)

Inge's Added Comment: The regulators definitely need regulating. One has to wonder if they are actually living on the same planet, for they and their families will also have to live in the nest that they are fouling. There is just one environment, and one ecology.

For over a half century - starting with the Dilution Solution to Pollution for Fluoride - the "non-storable industrial toxic waste" which was then marketed by the invented "tooth-fairy" . In order to claim the prevention of "tooth decay", they had to embark on a massive propaganda campaign of TRUTH DECAY! Apparently "toxic" can be translated into "beneficial" if one changes a few definitions and dogmas - and makes pseudo-scientific DECLARATIONS of "indisputable and indispensable benefit".

Extracted from: Fluoride To Make Prisoners 'stupid & Docile - CG

Apparently they are still at it. Persuade the public that these "toxics" are harmless, indeed, even "good for you", and disperse it under the umbrella of "fertilizer". How convenient! Apparently "heavy metals spread everywhere" levels the playing field - and everyone will be able to share equally in the bonanza of free toxic metals and industrial chemicals..
At one point of this kind of "solution insanity", radioactive sludge was dispersed as fertilizer - unfortunately the frogs turned up with extra legs, or none - and that was too noticeable to be denied. Our corporation-controlled "democratic" governments continue to pursue the "let's just disperse the poison everywhere - hope that no one notices - and just cover it all up with secrecy and/or plenty of propaganda - PR - Predictable Rhetoric - from hired "science-shills".
As part of the equation: There will never be enough money in the tax-payer kitty to pay for the health-destruction consequences - one of which is a population that is so brain/nerve damaged that it is unable to function. We already have an unsupportable number of children - classified as 'special needs' - who are not capable of functioning normally, without extra-ordinary support. How many more children are we prepared to sacrifice?
If government agendas, government regulations, and government propaganda and pseudo-science would stop CREATING the health-breakdown problems, the medical budget would be more than adequate. As long as government pursues the path of health and environmental destruction, there is no amount of money that will remedy or reverse the unpardonable, but preventable, consequences.
Folks, this is our environment, our soil, our food, our water, our SURVIVAL. Keep the nest clean! Even if it means that we ALL have to get out of our easy chairs and take a definite and unrelenting stand. These government "solution-finders - (ignoramouses or criminals) must be held to account before they wreak this kind of irreversible toxic damage on all those whom they are "supposedly" mandated to protect.
God, Protect me from these protectors!

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:42:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: chris abbott chrisabbott12003@...

Action Alert

B.C. - They are at it again! The BC government is proposing, after only 30 days internet based consultation, to allow the almost uncontrolled landspreading of pulp mill sludge, lime dregs, and fly ash (that’s the stuff out of the pollution control devices at the top of the stack – they catch the pollution that now BC Environment wants to spread on farmland.)

The Code of Practice requires testing for only 11 metals – worse than the last time out in 2000, when at least the sludge was required to be tested for all the compounds listed in the Contaminated Sites Act! Even then we protested that this was inadequate because of the mix of compounds in pulp mill sludge: No one knows all of the contaminants in pulp mill sludge. We do know that it contains a variety of heavy metals, and chlorinated and non-chlorinated benzenes and phenolics (PAH) and that the amount appears to vary from sample to sample. Nor does anyone know what the actual environmental impacts of landspreading sludge are, because for almost 25 years, industry across North America has been denying environmentalists’ efforts to get some honest testing done.
The new Code of Practice has no recourse for neighbours of the sludge site, does not require records to be publicly available, and throws the burden on to the medical health officers to object if the application is to agricultural land or within a drinking watershed. Even then, all the medical health officer could do is request that the Regional Environment Director add additional management standards.
Looking at the few criteria the regulation does establish, the presentation may be called at best, disingenuous. The BC Statement Of Intentions For The Code Of Practice says: “Most of these numbers are consistent with the standards for metals in fertilizers and supplements established by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and adopted by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines for Compost Quality.”
However closer examination reveals that NONE of the metals levels meet the CCME standard for unrestricted or agricultural use, and in the case of mercury the BC reg even exceeds by three times the CCME maximum acceptable level for restricted use!

The regulation proposes that sludge should be handled in compliance with the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation, primarily intended for sewage sludge not industrial waste, but a ministry audit of 10 Vancouver island sewage sludge operations in 2003-04 found that “Overall, none of the sites met all significant requirements of the OMRR.”Organic Matter Recycling Regulation Audit Report 2003-2004,
Chris Abbott

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................