Sludge to Protect Children from Lead Exposure

[Guest guest]

Sludge Fertilizer Program Spurs Concerns

By JOHN HEILPRIN and KEVIN S. VINEYS

– 2 hours ago

BALTIMORE (AP) — Scientists using federal grants spread fertilizer made from human and industrial wastes on yards in poor, black neighborhoods to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. Families were assured the sludge was safe and were never told about any harmful ingredients...

full article at:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbpCMPX9_kRtYkL1Yv9-

OzuVxFfQD9013VO81

or Google " AP Sludge Fertilizer "

This reminded me of the attempt a couple of years ago to test pesticides on poor children. Or, the federal gov't proposal in 2001 to dispose of scrap metals with residual radioactivity by diluting it with landfill waste to then be recyceled into consumer products for us all. http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/bbs/ftpup/fedreg/36562.pdf

It's all legal and it's all according " scientifically established " standards and procedures. So which " standards " do we trust? If forced upon us does trust make any difference?

Too often when full disclosure does occur (which is rare), I seem to experience the uneasiness of less trust. Kind of the obverse of the boy who cried wolf.

More like " the Boy Who Didn't Cry Wolf. "

Or perhaps, The Boy Who Cried, 'There Is No Wolf.'

BTW, " obverse " is a real word. " In

traditional logic

, obversion is a " type of immediate

inference

in which from a given

proposition

another proposition is inferred whose subject is the same as the original subject, whose predicate is the contradictory of the original predicate, and whose quality is affirmative if the original proposition's quality was negative and vice versa " .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obverse_%28logic%29

Got that? Kind of fits, don't you think?

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC