Source and More to this Story
Friday, May 10, 2013
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Crystal L. Cox FIGHTS Back. Crystal Cox Files a Lawsuit against Montana Forensics Engineer Scott Curry, CBIC Insurance, BJCC Inspections, Whitefish Credit Union, Mike Workman, C21 Eureka Montana, First American Title, Ron Nelson, Nelson Construction Eureka Montana, Antonich Adjusters, Noel Appraisals, Abel Engineering, NMAR, Kathy Schulte Kalispell, J. Tiffin Hall, Tiffin Hall Law Office, Alleging Fraud, Breach of Contract, Intentional Misrepresentation, Civil Conspiracy, Consumer Protection Act, Truth in Lending, Fraud, Negligence, Violation of Civil Rights, Breach of Care, RESPA, Montana Credit Union Act, Toxic Mold Safety and Protection Act of 2002, and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
Click Arrow to Read Full Document
AND
NMAR, MLS Number 316256
Public NOTICE on Eureka Montana Real Estate Drumlin Lane
AND
NMAR, MLS Number 316256
Public NOTICE on Eureka Montana Real Estate Drumlin Lane
Posted Here Upon Knowledge and Belief of Montana Real Estate Broker,
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.
Independent MEDIA, Citizen Journalist, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox FILES Anti-Trust Lawsuit against Forbes, Kashmir HIll, David Carr, New York Times, WIPO, Marc J. Randazza, Tracy Coenen, Peter L. Michaelson ...
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox v. Kashmir Hill Forbes Reporter
Northern California Case 4:13-cv-02046-DMR
Anti-Trust Lawsuit Cox v Kashmir Hill, Forbes -
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Port Townsend Paper Mill Bankruptcy Filing. Did the Port Townsend Mill LIE about KNOWN health risks or possible health risks, in the federal filings for a MASSIVE Bankruptcy?
Upon Knowledge and Belief Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox alleges that the Port Townsend Paper Corporation falsified bankruptcy documents, or so it seems.
It seems to me that the Port Townsend Paper Mill had to affirm, certify, as to whether they were knowingly harming the public or not, as a condition of their bankruptcy. Or if they thought this would change in the future See Attachment 1 on the document below ( Page 5 of 12).
Yet it sure seems to be that there is documented information that says the OPPOSITE. So is the Port Townsend Paper Corporation a "threat of imminent and identifiable harm to the public health or safety"? Well it sure seems that 1000 lbs of ammonia in the air, nitrates, overly alkaline water, 500 lbs of grease and oil daily is a harm to the public.
Upon Knowledge and Belief Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox alleges that the Port Townsend Paper Corporation did know of toxins in the air and water, and did know they were a public health risk, regardless of the politics of "National, state, and local authorities" called them out on it or not.
If in 2007 or before, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation was "aware" of any "threat of imminent and identifiable harm to the public health or safety", then it sure seems like they have committed fraud on the courts in what looks to be a MASSIVE amount of money in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Bankruptcy Filing
Document Signed by
Timothy P. Leybold
So did Timothy P. Leybold or the Port Townsend Paper Corporation know any possible health risk, in 2007 when they signed this FEDERAL Document? I think so, but I hope not, as that sounds like indictment to me, just sayin'.
Port Townsend Paper Gets Bankruptcy Protection, meanwhile they are rolling in the dough and seem to be flat out lying about known toxins. Well, it sure looks that way to me.
PT Holdings Company, Inc.
Port Townsend Paper Corporation
PTPC Packaging Co. Inc.
It seems to me that the Port Townsend Paper Mill had to affirm, certify, as to whether they were knowingly harming the public or not, as a condition of their bankruptcy. Or if they thought this would change in the future See Attachment 1 on the document below ( Page 5 of 12).
Yet it sure seems to be that there is documented information that says the OPPOSITE. So is the Port Townsend Paper Corporation a "threat of imminent and identifiable harm to the public health or safety"? Well it sure seems that 1000 lbs of ammonia in the air, nitrates, overly alkaline water, 500 lbs of grease and oil daily is a harm to the public.
Upon Knowledge and Belief Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox alleges that the Port Townsend Paper Corporation did know of toxins in the air and water, and did know they were a public health risk, regardless of the politics of "National, state, and local authorities" called them out on it or not.
If in 2007 or before, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation was "aware" of any "threat of imminent and identifiable harm to the public health or safety", then it sure seems like they have committed fraud on the courts in what looks to be a MASSIVE amount of money in a federal bankruptcy proceeding.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Bankruptcy Filing
Document Signed by
Timothy P. Leybold
So did Timothy P. Leybold or the Port Townsend Paper Corporation know any possible health risk, in 2007 when they signed this FEDERAL Document? I think so, but I hope not, as that sounds like indictment to me, just sayin'.
Port Townsend Paper Gets Bankruptcy Protection, meanwhile they are rolling in the dough and seem to be flat out lying about known toxins. Well, it sure looks that way to me.
PT Holdings Company, Inc.
Port Townsend Paper Corporation
PTPC Packaging Co. Inc.
Port Townsend Paper Mill Bankruptcy Docket
Port Townsend Paper Mill Bankruptcy Consolidated with member cases PTPC Packaging Co Inc (07-10341) Docket
Were there lots of "little guys" with Olympic Peninsula families that the Port Townsend Paper Mill STIFFED in their big fat bankruptcy? How is it ok to take all those working families money, use their business and NOT pay them yet not have a job retraining program and SHUT DOWN THE MILL? Are the mill families more important then the families of the creditors that Port Townsend Paper did not have to pay in their bankruptcy? Or is all this a myth too?
Debtor
PT Holdings Company Inc, Lead Case: Consolidated with member cases PTPC Packaging Co Inc (07-10341) and Port Townsend Paper Corporation (07-10342)
Consolidated with member cases PTPC Packaging Co Inc (07-10341) Docket
Were there lots of "little guys" with Olympic Peninsula families that the Port Townsend Paper Mill STIFFED in their big fat bankruptcy? How is it ok to take all those working families money, use their business and NOT pay them yet not have a job retraining program and SHUT DOWN THE MILL? Are the mill families more important then the families of the creditors that Port Townsend Paper did not have to pay in their bankruptcy? Or is all this a myth too?
Debtor
PT Holdings Company Inc, Lead Case: Consolidated with member cases PTPC Packaging Co Inc (07-10341) and Port Townsend Paper Corporation (07-10342)
Consolidated with member cases PTPC Packaging Co Inc (07-10341) Docket
Port Townsend Washington Residents have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to Clean Air, Clean Water and to live in a non-toxic environment.
"The Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment"
"Do people have a right to clean air, safe drinking water, and a healthy environment? Fifty years ago, the concept of a human right to a healthy environment was viewed as a novel, even radical, idea. Today it is widely recognized in international law and endorsed by an overwhelming proportion of countries.
Even more importantly, despite their recent vintage, environmental rights are included in more than 90 national constitutions. These provisions are having a remarkable impact, ranging from stronger environmental laws and landmark court decisions to the cleanup of pollution hot spots and the provision of safe drinking water.1
Environmental rights and responsibilities have been a cornerstone of indigenous legal systems for millennia.2 Yet the right to a healthy environment is not found in pioneering human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), or the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966).
Society's awareness of the magnitude, pace, and adverse consequences of environmental degradation was not sufficiently advanced during the era when these agreements were drafted to warrant the inclusion of ecological concerns.
Society's awareness of the magnitude, pace, and adverse consequences of environmental degradation was not sufficiently advanced during the era when these agreements were drafted to warrant the inclusion of ecological concerns.
The first written suggestion that there should be a human right to a healthy environment came from Rachel Carson in Silent Spring, published in 1962:
If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantees that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our forefathers, despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem.3
Similarly, in her final public speech before dying of cancer, Carson testified before President Kennedy's Scientific Advisory Committee, urging it to consider
a much neglected problem, that of the right of the citizen to be secure in his own home against the intrusion of poisons applied by other persons. I speak not as a lawyer but as a biologist and as a human being, but I strongly feel that this is or ought to be one of the basic human rights.4
The first formal recognition of the right to a healthy environment came in the Stockholm Declaration, which emerged from the pioneering global eco-summit in 1972:
Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being, and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for present and future generations.5
In the four decades since the Stockholm Declaration, the right to a healthy environment rapidly migrated around the globe. As of 2012, 177 of the world's 193 UN member nations recognize this right through their constitution, environmental legislation, court decisions, or ratification of an international agreement (see Figure 1). The only remaining holdouts are the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, Oman, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Brunei Darussalam, Lebanon, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, Malaysia, and Cambodia. Even among these laggards, some subnational governments recognize the right to a healthy environment, including six American states, five Canadian provinces or territories, and a growing number of cities.6
Regional human rights agreements recognizing the right to a healthy environment have been ratified by more than 130 nations spanning Europe, Asia, the Americas, the Caribbean, Africa, and the Middle East. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Committee on Social Rights have issued decisions in cases involving violations of this right.
While international law plays a vital role in establishing norms and offering a court of last resort for human rights violations, the reality is that most of the action to protect and fulfill rights occurs at the national level. Within countries, a constitution is the highest and strongest law, as all laws, regulations, and policies must be consistent with it. A constitution protects human rights, sets forth the obligations of the state, and restricts government powers. On a deeper level, constitutions reflect the most deeply held and cherished values of a society. As a judge once stated, “A constitution is a mirror of a nation's soul.”7
Portugal (in 1976) and Spain (1978) were the first countries to include the right to a healthy environment in their constitutions. Article 66 of Portugal's Constitution states, “Everyone has the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment and the duty to defend it.”8 Since the mid-1970s, 92 countries have granted constitutional status to this right (see Figure 2). Constitutional law experts observe that recognition of environmental rights has grown more rapidly over the past 50 years than any other human right.9
Despite this progress, there is an ongoing debate about the scope and potential utility of the right to a healthy environment. Supporters argue that the potential benefits of constitutional environmental rights include:
- Stronger environmental laws and policies
- Improved implementation and enforcement
- Greater citizen participation in environmental decision making
- Increased accountability
- Reduction in environmental injustices
- A level playing field with social and economic rights
- Better environmental performance
Critics, on the other hand, argue that constitutional environmental rights are:
- Too vague to be useful
- Redundant because of existing human rights and environmental laws
- A threat to democracy because they shift power from elected legislators to judges
- Not enforceable
- Likely to cause a flood of litigation
- Likely to be ineffective
Is the constitutional right to live in a healthy environment merely a paper tiger with few practical consequences? Or is this right a powerful catalyst for accelerating progress toward a sustainable future? The best way to answer these questions is by examining the experiences of the 92 nations where this right enjoys constitutional status.
Proving a clear cause-and-effect relationship is always challenging in the social sciences. However, new research demonstrates that the incorporation of the right to a healthy environment in a country's constitution leads directly to two important legal outcomes—stronger environmental laws and court decisions defending the right from violations (see Box 1). Evidence indicates that the other anticipated benefits of constitutional environmental rights also are being realized, while the potential drawbacks are not materializing.
Safety Net
In addition to providing an impetus for strengthening environmental laws, the constitutional right to a healthy environment has been used to close gaps in environmental law. Costa Rica and Nepal offer examples of courts ordering governments to enact legislation or regulations that would protect fisheries and reduce air pollution, respectively.16 The courts did not spell out the details of the laws but merely clarified that certain legislation is an essential element of fulfilling the government's environmental responsibilities. In other nations, courts issued carefully crafted judgments that did not compel but rather influenced states to take action (e.g., legislation governing plastic bags in Uganda, public smoking in India, and air quality standards in Sri Lanka).17
Courts are not always willing to fill legislative or regulatory gaps. The Supreme Court of the Philippines, despite agreeing that air pollution from motor vehicles was a threat to health, declined to order the government to convert all of its vehicles to compressed natural gas because it believed this would have interfered with legislative and executive responsibilities.18
Prevents Rollbacks
Another legal advantage flowing from constitutional recognition of the right to a healthy environment is that it may prevent the future weakening of environmental laws and policies (commonly referred to as rollbacks). Courts have articulated the principle, based on the right to a healthy environment, that current environmental laws and policies represent a baseline that can be improved but not weakened.19This concept is called the standstill principle in Belgium and is also recognized in Hungary, South Africa, and many nations in Latin America. In France, the principle is known as the “ratchet effect” or “nonregression.”20
Conclusion
The right to live in a healthy environment
continues to gain recognition.
New constitutions incorporating the right to a healthy environment were enacted in Kenya and the Dominican Republic in 2010, and in Jamaica, Morocco, and South Sudan in 2011. New constitutions in Iceland and Zambia, pending formal approval, include the right. A broad coalition of Zimbabwean civil society organizations has called for the drafting of a new constitution with a “justiciable Bill of Rights that recognizes civil, political, social, economic, cultural and environmental rights.”57 In 2012, the UN Human Rights Council appointed an independent expert to report on the universal right to a healthy environment.58
From Argentina to Zambia, something extraordinary is happening. In communities, legislatures, and courtrooms around the world, a new human right is blossoming from seeds planted decades ago. The constitutional right to live in a healthy environment represents a tangible embodiment of hope, an aspiration that the destructive, polluting ways of the past can be replaced by cleaner, greener societies in the future. While no nation has yet achieved the holy grail of ecological sustainability, the evidence indicates that constitutional protection of environmental rights can be a powerful and potentially transformative step toward that elusive goal. As Gus Speth, former dean of the Yale School of Forestry, recently stated, “I am very excited about the move to rights-based environmentalism. Lord knows we need some stronger approaches.”59
http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/July-August%202012/constitutional-rights-full.htmlSource and More
Maybe Port Townsend Washington could look into the UN Human Rights Council on the ISSUE of forcing the Port Townsend Paper Mill to STOP spewing toxins into the AIR that Port Townsend Washington residents breath.
What REALLY in the SLUDGE that the Port Townsend Paper Mill is moving to other Locations, or Selling? "We urge you to prohibit any further spreading of pulp mill sludge until testing has conclusively proven that it is safe for people in communities, workers and the environment."
"
Sludge From Pulp And Paper Mills
- The Paper Sludge Story: Recycling in Ontario Shows the Dark Side of Green
- Proposed Landspreading of Pulp Mill Waste in BC - November December 2005
- Letter to Minister Sawicki - February 16, 2000
- Pulp Mill Sludge Backgrounder - February 2000
- Airborne Problems - Scientific Literature on Health Impacts of Bioaerosols - February 2000
- Pulp Mill Sludge Land Application - November 1997
- Pulp Mill Sludge Draft - November 1997
- Powell River Grate Ash/Lime Dregs Appeal: Substantive Victory! - August 1997
- Assessment of Powell River By-Product for Land Application - March 1997
- What We Know about Sludge, Grate Ash and Lime Dregs - A Reach! Working Paper - March 1997
- A Critique of the Mill Waste Characterization in Paprican Miscellaneous Report MR 324 - February 1997
More Information
- A website about the on-going problems with Atlantic Packaging recycled paper sludge and the Ontario government's on again off again approval of its use as "Sound Sorb."
Letter To Minister Sawicki
February 16, 2000
Hon. Joan Sawicki
Minister of the Environment
Legislative Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Hon. Joan Sawicki
Minister of the Environment
Legislative Buildings
Victoria, BC V8V 1X4
Dear Minister Sawicki:
Draft Three of the Pulp Mill Sludge Regulation and the Guideline for the Land Application of Pulp and Paper Mill Sludge will open the floodgates of land spreading of pulp mill sludge.
We urge you to prohibit any further spreading of pulp mill sludge until testing has conclusively proven that it is safe for people in communities, workers and the environment.
We urge you to prohibit any further spreading of pulp mill sludge until testing has conclusively proven that it is safe for people in communities, workers and the environment.
Why?
Pulp mill waste water contains a mix of hundreds of chemicals that harm the environment. In British Columbia we know this only too well, and it took years to get laws that made the mills install secondary treatment to clean up the effluent. Secondary treatment removes those bad chemicals from the water and puts them into the sludge. Now the Ministry wants to approve spreading toxic sludge on the farms, forests and parks of British Columbia.
No one knows all of the contaminants in pulp mill sludge. We do know that it contains a variety of heavy metals, benzenes and phenolics. We also know that other jurisdictions in North America that have experimented with spreading sludge have experienced unexpected problems, and frequently halt the sludge spreading programmes in a wave of citizen protest.
In 1998, when your Ministry finally agreed to commit $20,000 to independent testing of the sludge to find out what is in it and whether it could harm people or the environment, the Council of Forest Industries withdrew from the advisory table. Behind closed doors, your staff continued to draw up regulations to allow the sludge to be spread across the province. The only testing ordered in the Regulation is for chemicals listed in the Contaminated Sites Act. This is inadequate. The few tests available show a wide range of poorly understood chemicals, including a large amount of material that cannot be identified.
If the regulation is passed, BC citizens will have no recourse, no avenue to appeal when truck after truck of sludge is dumped in their communities. Workers will be forced into contact with the sludge that often contains harmful bacteria.
Minister, we urge you to be guided by the Precautionary Principle in this matter and order thorough testing and consideration by independent scientists before you open the flood gates to over 50,000 truckloads per year of this unknown material spread all over British Columbia.
British Columbia has suffered enough toxic pollution from kraft pulp mills. Let's stop this contamination before it start
Alberni Environmental Coalition, Port Alberni
Biosphere Monitor, Quadra Island
Canadian EarthCare Foundation, Kelowna
Cariboo-Chilcotin Conservation Society, Williams Lake
Comox Valley Naturalists Society, Courtenay
Council of Canadians, Victoria Chapter
Cortes Ecoforestry Society, Cortes Island
East Kootenay Environmental Society, Kimberley
Elliott-Anderson-Christian-Trozzo Watershed Committee, Winlaw
FarmFolk/CityFolk Society, Vancouver
Forest Protection Allies, Quesnel
Fraser Headwaters Alliance, Dunster
Friends of Clayoquot Sound, Tofino
Friends of Cortes Island, Cortes
Friends of the Slocan Valley, Victoria
Georgia Strait Alliance, Nanaimo
Granby Wilderness Society, Grand Forks
Greenpeace, Vancouver
Kaslo & District Environment Society, Kaslo
Nelson EcoCentre, Nelson
Ocean Voice International, Bamfield
Okanagan Similkameen Parks Society, Summerland
Qualicum Beach Environment Committee, Qualicum Beach
Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, Vancouver
Reach for Unbleached! Vancouver
Rivershed Society of British Columbia, Coquitlam
Rogers' Environmental and Educational Foundation, Nanaimo
Sierra Club of British Columbia, Victoria
Sierra Club of BC - Quadra Island Group
T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, Vancouver
Thompson Watershed Coalition, Kamloops
Silva Forest Foundation, Winlaw
Valhalla Wilderness Society, New Denver
West Arm Watershed Alliance, Nelson
West Coast Environmental Law Association, Vancouver
Western Canada Wilderness Committee
The BC Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks has issued Draft Three of a Sludge Regulation, which calls for some minimal testing of sludge before it is spread on farms, forests and parks. A further Ministry guideline on sludge handling and spreading warns that the sludge can contaminate ground water.
The pulp mills call it "bio solids." The government calls it pulp mill sludge. We call it Industrial Waste.
There has been no independent testing of this material to determine what's really in it. We do not know if this industrial waste causes genetic mutations or harms the hormone system of wildlife or people exposed to it. We do not know what gasses off the sludge to harm the workers who have to handle it.
What Is It?
Pulp mill sludge is a complex and changeable mixture of dozens or even hundreds of compounds, just like mill waste water. Some are well known, like heavy metals, dioxin and other organochlorines. Some, created by the bacteria in the treatment ponds, are probably unknown to science.
Environment Canada scientists in the Maritimes believe nonylphenol compounds are responsible for the decline in Atlantic salmon returns. We know that the pulp and paper industry uses one third of the nonylphenols in Canada, and we suspect these hormone disruptors wind up in sludge.
History of the Issue in BC
In 1994 a Kamloops farmer decided to experiment by feeding pulp mill sludge to cattle, until the Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada (PPWC) alerted the public. In 1996 a quiet rural neighbourhood near Krestova was upset when Celgar mill spread 80 tonnes of kraft sludge within 170 feet of a local well. The land was subsequently sold. In 1998 a neighbourhood near Quesnel BC was shocked to find Quesnel River sludge dumped on frozen land that sloped toward creeks and a local lake. The mill subsequently removed the sludge.
In 1996, the Ministry of Environment set up a Pulp Mill Sludge Advisory Committee that was to examine all aspects of pulp mill solid waste. Environmental groups like Reach for Unbleached! participated fully, repeatedly demanding that the waste material undergo testing before it was broadcast over the environment.
By 1998, when the Ministry of Environment agreed to do some independent testing, to see what really was in the sludge, the Council of Forest Industries (COFI) promptly withdrew from the committee, and the budget for testing was lost.
The Ministry produced the Draft Three Sludge Regulations and Guidelines in October 1999.
There has been some limited spreading of pulp and paper sludge in British Columbia under special approvals. Paper mill sludge is mixed with GVRD municipal sludge and spread on Scott Paper poplar plantations on islands in the Fraser River. Quesnel River Pulp spreads some of its sludge on farmland in the Quesnel area. Celgar kraft sludge has been spread on some orchards and agricultural land.
This regulation throws the doors wide open for over 50,000 truckloads of sludge per year to be spread in BC communities, with virtually no government oversight and no independent monitoring.
Widespread Concern
The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers of Canada has called for sludge to be treated as regulated "toxic waste" until "the pulp and paper industry can supply verifiable and irrefutable proof (through valid scientific testing) that there are no ill side effects to the workers who handle these products"
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering listing paper mill sludge as hazardous waste.
Ontarians have been complaining about the spreading of pulp and paper sludge for years. In 1999 the Ontario Environmental Commissioner wrote: "The applicants cite concerns about the contamination of soil, ground water and surface water, as well as impacts on livestock, wildlife and soil microorganisms. Many have also complained about odour, and symptoms such as headaches, burning eyes and breathing difficulties associated with freshly spread sludges."
The State of New Hampshire abruptly cancelled a mill sludge spreading program in 1998 after the discovery of unexpected toxic chemicals leaching into ground water. Additionally the state is now facing a lawsuit over the spreading of mill sludge that should have been classified as hazardous waste.
In Ontario a multi million dollar lawsuit has just been settled over the death of 43 acres of grapes where paper sludge had been piled in between the rows at Hernder Winery in St. Catherines.
What We Want
- Rigorous and independent testing of pulp mill sludge
- Prohibit the land spreading of pulp mill sludge until these waste materials are known to be safe in the environment
- Eliminate known toxic contaminants, such as nonylphenols and chlorine compounds, from pulp mill processes
* Peter Ronald, Campaign Coordinator, Georgia Strait Alliance; ; (250)361-3621; fax: (250)361-3682; Box 5591, Victoria BC V8R 6S4 Canada
* Delores Broten, former Executive Director, Reach for Unbleached, Box 39, Whaletown, British Columbia Canada V0P 1Z0
Maureen Reilly is an environmental researcher with Uxbridge Conservation Association, Ontario. She would like to hear from organizations or individuals who have experience or information about this issue.
There appears to be growing literature on the health impacts of bioaerosols in both indoor and outdoor environments. From the experience of affected individuals from Beaverton, Cornwall, and Sault Ste Marie, there appears to be growing evidence that some individuals are becoming impacted by bioaerosols from paper mill sludge.
This is a health concern since properties adjacent to large land application projects are often subjected to unincorporated sludge operations as often as twice a year. Unincorporated refers to the practice of top dressing, or leaving the sludge on the surface of the soil without mixing it into the soil.
Often sludge piles are left to decompose for months or even years, and when these piles are opened there is often powerful impacts such as burning of nostrils, and breathing difficulty.
This is a health concern since properties adjacent to large land application projects are often subjected to unincorporated sludge operations as often as twice a year. Unincorporated refers to the practice of top dressing, or leaving the sludge on the surface of the soil without mixing it into the soil.
Often sludge piles are left to decompose for months or even years, and when these piles are opened there is often powerful impacts such as burning of nostrils, and breathing difficulty.
Thus there are a wide variety of conditions under which sludge decomposes and can have a variety of on site and off site effects.
The sludges appear to support a wide variety of microbial growths, and further work should be done to characterize the types of growths that are present in the sludge in various stages of decomposition. Bioaerosols are also a concern in the composting of sewage sludges.
Reported effects including tightening of the chest and allergic reactions. There is some concern about mutagenicity, and acute toxicity as well. Much of the literature on bioaerosols reviews the heath impact on healthy male employees at composting sites. It does not capture the impact of these bioaerosols on subject populations living adjacent to sludge operations. These individuals may be elderly, immunocompromised from transplants, cardiac surgery, diabetes, or may be children or infants in poor health. These individuals are subject to the bioaerosols on a 24 hour a day, seven day a week basis. Unlike an affected worker, they have no recourse to remedies available to workers such as changing jobs or duties, nor are they eligible for Workmans Compensation for injuries they have suffered.
For these reasons, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health should require land applied sludges to be thoroughly investigated for bioaerosols, including, mould and fungal growth, mycotoxins and endotoxins, under a wide variety of environmental conditions. There are health standards for the presence of such growths in the environmental health and safety field, and this literature can be used as a starting point for investigating the levels of such agents present in rural land application initiatives, especially in those areas where health impacts are suspected. "
Source and Full Articlehttp://www.rfu.org/cacw/pollutionSludge1.htm
Yes the Port Townsend Mill is Unbleached however that certainly does not remove the toxins, only the toxins from bleaching, from what I understand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)