Hi Dawie >Keith > >#3 goes without saying ...
It can't be said often enough, IMHO. >Strictly speaking, nobody has any business invading the countryside >unless they are bona-fide farmers or bona-fide hermits. Just as long as you know your place. But then that wouldn't be invasive would it. We're part of it, it's part of us. >I am neither, so my efforts are directed to developing a better >pattern of urban living. The key is that it must be entirely >different from a rural settlement pattern: I don't think there's any clear cut-off point between the two. >the model layout for 20 cottages won't work if their occupants don't farm. It will work if they garden, or even if only a few of them garden. Actually it can work even if none of them garden. You can't confine composting to farmers, that's just not so. A very great deal of composting is done in cities, in all shapes and sizes. >Indeed, the fact that the prevalent urban form seeks to maintain the >illusion of rural settlement is a major contributor to the problem. I guess it depends where you're looking. Of course there are places where that applies, but I don't think there's such a dichotomy in general, more like a grey area. In many parts of the world (more and more) much or even most of the food people eat is grown by city farms, with either very little land (like allotments) or no land (rooftop gardens, container gardens), including poultry, and in many cases the city farms play a major role in waste recycling. It fits well, but the authorities don't like it (of course). Best Keith >-Dawie > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 12:45:02 PM >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Sludge, not in my backyard > >Hello Dawie > >You skipped #3, but it would make your plans a lot simpler, IMHO. > > >3. Compost, compost, compost. > ><http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT8.html>http://jo >urneytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/AT8.html >An Agricultural Testament - Albert Howard - Chapter 8 >Developments of the Indore Process >The Utilization of Town Wastes > >See, among other things, the "model layout for 20 cottages". > >Also: > ><http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/ATapp3.html>http:/ >/journeytoforever.org/farm_library/howardAT/ATapp3.html >An Agricultural Testament - Albert Howard - Appendix C >The Manufacture of Humus from the Wastes of the Town and the Village > >Dump the septic tank! No need for all that water, no effluent, no >troublesome sludge to take somewhere else (where it'll have to be >hot-composted anyway). Use sawdust toilets, with an accompanying >greywater system of the same scale, keep the flush toilets for >multi-stories, as you say. > >Have you read this? > ><http://journeytoforever.org/compost_humanure.html>http://journeytofo >rever.org/compost_humanure.html >Humanure > >For the rest, I fully agree. > >All best > >Keith > > > >//1. Polluter pays - once it's made prohibitively expensive there > >won't be any more industrial wastes in sewage systems, especially if > >that goes with an informed public that hates the idea.// > > > >I've given some thought to sewer reticulation. It seems to me that > >bringing the treatment closer to the source might be beneficial, for > >instance four to 10 households sharing a septic tank and percolating > >filter, which may then discharge a fairly clean effluent back to the > >farmland. If, moreover, the sludge is sold directly to a manure > >supplier who will not pay for industrial or toxic waste > >because farmer customers don't want it, the idea is reinforced that > >one is responsible not only to the farmers and the environment but > >also very practically to one's immediate neighbours for what goes > >down the drain. It requires a certain sort of close and economically > >robust community, but that is just another item to add to the long > >list of reasons that such communities are needed. > > > >In any event industrial effluent needs an entirely separate system > >of reticulation. I've been thinking about likely wastes from the > >sorts of light industries that can co-exist with domestic urban land > >use, i.e. mom-and-pop manufactories in the ground floors of houses. > >It looks like most of it can be caught and recycled or re-used, even > >on the premises. The rest ought to go into conservancy tanks for > >subsequent processing by others using more involved means. It could > >be that we're talking very small volumes. Again, it is something > >influenced by the shape of the community it works in. > > > >//2. Get rid of the flush toilet (the most wasteful piece of > >equipment ever devised).// > > > >Toilet flushing can account for up to 30% of household water > >consumption, but it can be done with grey water if there is a > >suitable way to get it to the required height. The flush toilet has > >indispensable advantages in multi-storey buildings. It is imperative > >for urban domestic building to go three or four storeys if the > >insane pattern of urban transportation is to be broken, and then the > >possibility of carrying excrement through a long 4 1/2" pipe is not > >to be dismissed lightly. The house I'm planning is to incorporate > >three sources of water: stormwater, grey water, and mains water. > > > >The last is only because a healthy kind of urban form can only be > >achieved while only using the water that rains on urban land if the > >local climate provides a greater annual rainfall than about 2000mm. > >In Cape Town it's nearer 750mm, so urban land needs to borrow water > >from surrounding farmland - and return it, of course. > > > >The system is: stormwater to cistern; stormwater to small supply > >tank, supplemented with mains water when the stormater runs out; > >supply tank to domestic waste appliances; domestic wastes to > >grey-water system; grey water to second supply tank; that to flush > >toilets, small roof garden, and courtyard fig tree. Pumping is > >required in two places, in both cases electric-from-wind. > > > >//And cold turkey on the gas guzzlers, sorry about that.// > > > >Indeed, the pattern of vehicle use has to change radically. There > >are only three valid uses of motor vehicles. One might broadly call > >them farming, firefighting, and fun; and together they comprise a > >negligible proportion of the current total vehicle use. Farming, > >because it is inherently tied to the use of expanses of land which > >needs to be traversed, so there is a valid need for bringing produce > >to the nearest town. Firefighting and other emergency services > >because there are obvious advantages that it would be perverse to > >deny; and fun, because a society can only sustain a limited > >proportion of monks. The rest of us will not stomach an excess of > >austerity - but that is not to say that more than a very small > >minority would amuse themselves with motor vehicles. (But note that > >all three of these tend to require the same basic sort of automotive > >architecture, and how different that is from the "eco-friendly" > >offerings of the motor industry.) > > > >Everything else must go. The problem is not a few hot-rods but > >millions of "responsible" four-door saloons. I repeat, it's an > >urban-form thing: fuel, transport, services reticulation, > >farming, industrial and social relations, all work (or don't) > >together. > > > >-Dawie > > > >----- Original Message ---- > >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 1:18:57 PM > >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Sludge, not in my backyard > > > >Hello DM > > > > >I know that sludge has been spread on farmer's fields. Problem is, > > >it's loaded with > > >heavy metals, synthetic hormones and some pharmaceutical compounds. > > >Not exactly > > >what you want in your next ear of sweet corn. Plus sludge > > >contaminates ground water and aquifers. > > > >From 2004: > > > >Organic Toxic Sludge > > >Much of what you flush down your toilet likely ends up being spread > > >on local farm fields as fertilizer for the food you eat. At face > > >value, it seems like a perfectly natural process. Historically, > > >manure has been a preferred fertilizer for farmers worldwide. In the > > >U.S. 60% of sewage sludge is treated, dried and shipped out to the > > >farm. Proponents claim the sludge has only low levels of bacteria, > > >but what about the chemicals homeowners and industry dump into the > > >wastewater system? Those toxins don't just disappear. When applied > > >to the soil, they work their way into the ground water, the air, and > > >the plants we eat. Award winning scientist, David Lewis, a > > >microbiologist, was recently fired from the Environmental Protection > > >Agency for his criticism of the U.S. Government's sewage sludge > > >policies. Lewis and likeminded opponents question how the EPA, in > > >1992, determined that sewage sludge was too toxic to continue > > >dumping in the oceans, yet it's perfectly legal to apply the same > > >stuff to food crops intended for human ingestion. The EPA is now > > >considering selling this same sludge under the label "organic > > >compost". Write a letter to the EPA, expressing your concerns: > > ><<http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/sludge011504.cfm>htt >p:/>http://www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/sludge011504.cfm>http:/ > >/www.organicconsumers.org/foodsafety/sludge011504.cfm > > > ><<http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID= >200>http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&ArticleID=2 >00 > >20619-13558><http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print >&Art>http://asp.washtimes.com/printarticle.asp?action=print&Art > >icleID=20020619-13558 > >EPA says toxic sludge is good for fish > >Audrey Hudson > >THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published 6/19/2002 > > >The Army Corps of Engineers' dumping of toxic sludge into the > > >Potomac River protects fish by forcing them to flee the polluted > > >area and escape fishermen, according to an internal Environmental > > >Protection Agency document. > > > >LOL! > > > ><<http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/07/07032002/ap_47731.asp>ht >tp>http://enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/07/07032002/ap_47731.asp>http >: > >//enn.com/news/wire-stories/2002/07/07032002/ap_47731.asp > >Concern growing over use of recycled sludge on land > >Wednesday, July 03, 2002 > >By Judy Lin, Associated Press > > >PITTSBURGH - The dump trucks have begun rolling by Bob Grant's > > >western Pennsylvania farm, carrying recycled sludge by the ton for > > >fertilizing a neighbor's cattle-grazing land. To Grant, the trucks > > >don't just transport treated wastewater sludge. They carry viruses > > >that can be spread by the wind, bacteria that can seep into the > > >groundwater, and of course, the unbearable stench of ammonia. > > > >Four million tonnes a year. > > > ><<http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-03-06.asp>http://ens-news >.co>http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2002/2002-07-03-06.asp>http://ens-news. >co > >m/ens/jul2002/2002-07-03-06.asp > >Sewage Sludge Rules Fail to Protect Health > >By Cat Lazaroff > > >WASHINGTON, DC, July 3, 2002 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental > > >Protection Agency (EPA) is using outdated science to set standards > > >governing the use of treated sewage sludge as a fertilizer, warns a > > >new report from the National Academies' National Research Council. > > >The committee that wrote the report is calling for additional > > >studies to assess the health risks of sewage sludge. Sewage sludge, > > >the byproduct of treating municipal and industrial wastewater, is > > >often used as fertilizer. But even treated sewage sludge may contain > > >toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead and > > >mercury that can cause serious illnesses, including cancer and birth > > >defects. Sludge is also often laden with bacteria and viruses that > > >can cause diseases like E. coli and salmonella poisoning. > > > ><<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13710>http://www.heart >lan>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=13710>http://www.heartl >an > >d.org/Article.cfm?artId=13710 > >EPA Finds No Harm in Using Sewage Sludge as Fertilizer - by James M. > >Taylor - The Heartland Institute > >Published In: Environment News > >Publication Date: November 21, 2003 > > >After five years studying the application of sewage sludge as a > > >fertilizing agent, the Environmental Protection Agency has found > > >virtually no adverse health effects and has declined to impose > > >regulations on the practice. > > > >I don't suppose it got any better since then. > > > >Good book: > > > >Toxic Sludge Is Good For You > >Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry > >by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton > ><<http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html>http://www.prwatch.org/b >ook>http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy.html>http://www.prwatch.org/bo >ok > >s/tsigfy.html > > > >Sludge didn't used to contain all the toxic stuff, most of it didn't > >exist until 50 years ago or so, and production of existing hazwastes > >was minute compared with today. Nor had industry yet assumed their > >right to the free use of the local toilet facilities to externalise > >their wastes, or not nearly on such a scale as today. > > > >Wylie, Van Vuren, Gotaas and others working in the 1940s and 50s > >treated sludge along with other wastes by thermophilic aerobic > >composting (hot compost) with good effect. I'd guess any hazwastes in > >the finished compost were probably less than today's background > >levels (plus all the new stuff). > > > >"Fertility from Town Wastes" by J.C. Wylie, 1955, Faber & Faber, London > > > >"The Wastes of Civilization" by J.C. Wylie, 1959, Faber & Faber, London. > > > >"Soil Fertility and Sewage -- An account of Pioneer Work in South > >Africa in the Disposal of Town Wastes" by J.P.J. van Vuren, 1949, > >Faber & Faber, London. > > > >"Composting -- Sanitary Disposal and Reclamation of Organic Wastes" > >by Harold B. Gotaas, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Department of > >Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA, > >1956, World Health Organization, Geneva. > > > >(All on my scanning list, but it takes time.) > > > >Turning sewage sludge into oil so we can guzzle it in our motors is > >just sticking a band-aid on it. A transitional solution maybe, but > >this is the sustainable solution: > > > >1. Polluter pays - once it's made prohibitively expensive there won't > >be any more industrial wastes in sewage systems, especially if that > >goes with an informed public that hates the idea. > > > >2. Get rid of the flush toilet (the most wasteful piece of equipment > >ever devised). > > > >3. Compost, compost, compost. > > > >And cold turkey on the gas guzzlers, sorry about that. Re which, > >other projects promise oil supplies from turkey processing wastes, > >and from the manure lagoons at pig factory farms, sorry about that > >too - no more industrial food either, no massive concentrated hog > >farms, poultry or cattle farms or processing factories. No food miles. > > > >The BIO-PETROL folks are probably chasing venture capital at this > >stage, like a lot of other people. Still vapourware in other words. > > > >Peace to you > > > >Keith > > > > > > >Peace, D. Mindock > > >============================================== > > > > > > The substantial increase in the amount of sewage sludge worldwide > > >has become a major environmental concern. The treatment and disposal > > >of sewage sludge is a never-ending problem for cities around the > > >world which requires innovative new solutions. Because the disposal > > >of sludge consumes more than 30% of the budget of wastewater > > >treatment plants, sludge handling equipment is of vital interest to > > >plant operators. The industry is facing growing social concerns. In > > >all parts of the world there has been a public outcry to keep sewage > > >sludge away from human contact, as it poses a significant health > > >risk. Public concern of the hazards associated with sludge is always > > >a major influence in advancing the use of better equipment, and as a > > >result there is higher motivation to design new types of sludge > > >handling equipment. > > > > > >BioPetrol is developing a commercially viable global solution for > > >turning sewage sludge into oil, saving enormous sums in disposal and > > >saving the earth from the destructive sewage dumping which is > > >ruining the environment. > > > > > ><<<http://www.bio-petrol.com>www.bio-petrol.com/>http://www.BIO-P >ETR>http://www.bio-petrol.com>www.bio-petrol.com/>http://www.BIO-PETR > >OL.com>www.BIO-PETROL.com _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
