With all due respect, I suggest you read the affidavit I attached to the previous message and then please do tell me where your skepticism/scepticism lies. And, you do sound like an apologist for the interests involved. If that is not in fact the case then I do apologize. I suppose I expected greater skepticism of bureaucratic reports that attempt to kick the can down the road with the old standby line of needing more study/wanting more funding from a skeptic. Or that the excerpt might be viewed in the context of other studies. But, hey, I'm a skeptic by nature.
I am looking for proof. I am still in a state of reasonable doubt; your description of me as a "sludge supporter" is yet another example of your conclusion jumping. I am a sceptic and do not at present support either side
Thank you for your analysis of the powerful insurance industry and it's corporate allies usurping our basic right to a jury trial by 12 of our peers. Government does not work if this basic judicial system is not available to each of us. The medical device industry is another that benefits from state court pre-emption (get out of jail free card) as a result of 2/2008 Supreme Court Riegel v Medtronic. A failed medical implant such as a hip or knee does not prompt the FDA to investigate or remove it from the market. The victim cannot subpoena information to prove failure and the doctor can explant a failed component and confiscate it. The patient does not have ownership rights. Medicare and Medicaid patients are a "market" and taxpayers cover the cost of failure. This system is unsustainable and sick and wrong.
Dear Anonymous:
Funny you should mention house manure.... Last time I checked, horse manure did not include industrial wastes flushed down the drain. Horse manure is not the same as sewage sludge. Suggesting that that they are is, well, horse manure. Lisa Graves
Dear "Anonymous"--
Guilty of conclusion jumping? Why don't you take a look at the discredited EPA study referenced in the article about the lawsuit involving the dead cows and tainted milk? Here is a link to more information about the efforts to manufacture scientific evidence to support the safety of using sewage sludge on farmland: [http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:XWTcl9wa6jEJ:sludgefacts.org/Ref104.pdf+Affidavit+of+David+L.+Lewis,+Ph.D.,+Exhibit+A&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjzshxCPvN6PCpZDZ-W-Tv-_1AD9fFkUhfr471UeBbb-oJ-4lyFJIBLZPxpWBg9p0rjvCZPaVSXBK2BwQUUBtQeavjsXMmrbcwZREslzUmHRh0nn4Mpr_S8qkZc08my5dhVZNbI&sig=AHIEtbRP5ZDiuDhixVbO1hOl_ucME0o9HA]
And, the thing about the sludge that you seem to be willfully blind to is the fact of the accumulation of the substance in the soil that food is grown in and animals graze is. A test of the content of a single sample does not take into account the cumulative effect of using those substances for months and years. It's the same with water samples from superfund sites. The real test for human health is not whether a single glass of water will kill you.
Honest and unbiased science will look to what the cumulative effect of such chemical is and what risks are posed. So, for example, one of the questions for water tests is what are risks of consuming several glasses of water a day for years of chemicals that are carcinogens or other contaminants that can build up in your body and harm the functioning of your liver or other vital organ functions. And, as with the sewage sludge that is a combination of human and industrial wastes, one of the issues is the presence of an array of chemicals and metals that are being introduced into the food production system (and in the article above outrageously touted as "organic"), not just one time from one sample but many, many times.
And, if you are too biased based on your ties to the industries or parties involved to get that simple equation, then that's too bad for you. Lisa
Pages