More on Hopkins 'sludge'
This letter, one of many in response to Thursday's column, is from Thomas D. McKewen, former Director of the Maryland Environmental Service:
"As the recent undeserved criticism of the Hopkins scientists demonstrates, the
very word 'sludge' and its lowly origin tend to generate reflexive opposition. I became painfully familiar with this problem in the 1970's when I was Director of the Maryland Environmental Service. At that time, the Service and the USDA Beltsville Research Center developed improved sludge composting technology that led to many beneficial uses for an otherwise
friendless waste. Its application to reduce the toxic effects of lead in
soil is one of the more creative uses.
"Over the past forty years, sludge and other waste based composts
have received widespread acceptance. Your column and the Sun news articles
should help ease remaining public concerns and increase the opportunities to
employ these materials to achieve public health, environmental and economic
benefits."
Comments
Dear Mr Rodricks,
If I had the task of promoting unpredictable, toxic sludge "to achieve public health, environmental and economic benefits", I would also be 'painfully familiar with this problem' which is the next environmental disaster to be revealed worldwide. It really defies logic how anyone can say that the residue from a system whose task it is to receive everything that anyone wants to get rid of and can be poured down the drain, could achieve public health ... economic benefit for the company that gets rid of it without paying superfund money, yes.
You just lost all credibility, sir, endorsing an activity which is building to cause widespread disease, death and destruction.
Carl Lindstrom
Environmental Attaché
Swedish Embassy 1975-77
Posted by: Carl Lindstrom | May 9, 2008 4:57 AM