THE DEBUNKING PROCESS IN ACTION Human sewage harms sheep foetuses By Dr. Paul Fowler When ask about generic coliform testing of sludge, scientists are at a lost. From: Chaney, Rufus To: tim@timevansenvironment.com ; Akin Babatola ; The Rubins ; Ellen Z. Harrison Cc: stevens.rick@epa.gov ; SMITH.JAMES@epa.gov ; Moore, Michael ; Ned Beecher ; Greg Kester ; Bob O'Dette ; Baroldi, Layne ; Sam Hadeed ; eostoich@synagro.com ; Meckes.Mark@epa.gov ; BROBST.BOB@epamail.epa.gov ; Bastian.Robert@epa.gov ; pendergast.jim@epa.gov ; Joseph G. Cleary ; Steve Smith ; Brian Chambers ; Bob Davis ; Gordon Hickman (SVS HQ) ; David Holtum ; Mark Aitken ; Denver, Jessie ; LErnst@wef.org Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 4:10 PM Subject: RE: Fw: Human sewage harms sheep foetuses Dear Tim, Akin, et al.: I had prepared a summary of reported research on biosolids and sheep by the Rhind et al. group when the Paul et al. paper was first published; I updated theses listings with several new Abstracts from the Rhind et al. team. I will attach that and a listing of papers and Abstracts for relevant research on sheep and biosolids. I agree with Dr. Evans regarding the inappropriate agronomic methods of the Paul et al study. If the weight gains of the biosolids-exposed sheep had been equal to the controls, the comparison would have been much more appropriate. As Rhind et al. have been publishing for several years, disturbance of sheep nutrition can induce the specific fetal changes they attributed to biosolids in the Paul et al. study. With such a known strong effector of fetus health already well established, it is difficult to conclude that the effect of xenobiotics in the biosolids directly caused the mild adverse effects observed. In addition, measurement of several lipophilic xenobiotics in the sheep tissues failed to demonstrate that biosolids use on the pasture affected residues in the sheep. In the absence of increased residue in the sheep, it is even more difficult to justify the suggestion that these compounds in biosolids caused the effects in sheep feti. In addition, these compounds have a short half-life in aerobic soils. And in the UK, surface application of biosolids on pastures has now been prohibited. In the US, a longer waiting period is required under 503 than was used in the Paul et al. studies. I also agree with Dr. Evans that the equivalence of the fertilizer value of the treatments was not achieved by the experimental methods used. Substantial difference in nutrient content would have been expected for the treatments. This failure to balance the nutrient status of the pastures would have reduced yield and protein value of the forages. In addition, any sheep refusal of biosolids covered pastures would further increase the severity of malnutrition of the sheep. Regards, Rufus Chaney USDA-ARS-EMBUL Beltsville, MD I hope the Bob Davis that Tim Evans copied his message to was the Bob Davis who did research on biosolids and metals in earlier years and that I have email contact with him again. Rufus -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Tim Evans [mailto:tim@timevansenvironment.com] Sent:   Monday, July 09, 2007 4:15 AM To:       'Akin Babatola'; 'The Rubins'; 'Ellen Z. Harrison' Cc:       stevens.rick@epa.gov; SMITH.JAMES@epa.gov; 'Moore, Michael'; 'Ned Beecher'; Chaney, Rufus; 'Greg Kester'; 'Bob O'Dette'; 'Baroldi, Layne'; 'Sam Hadeed'; eostoich@synagro.com; Meckes.Mark@epa.gov; BROBST.BOB@epamail.epa.gov; Bastian. Robert@epa.gov; pendergast.jim@epa.gov; 'Joseph G. Cleary'; 'Steve Smith'; 'Brian Chambers'; 'Bob Davis'; 'Gordon Hickman (SVS HQ)'; 'David Holtum'; 'Mark Aitken'; 'Denver, Jessie'; LErnst@wef.org Subject:    RE: Fw: Human sewage harms sheep foetuses Thanks Akin, Yes and no.  We are agreed that the researchers observed differences in the sheep and their lambing performances.  The point of disagreement is about the researchers’ conclusion as to the cause of the differences.  The experimental design does not support the conclusion that the cause is a mixture of chemicals.  Yes, the two groups of sheep grazed pastures that had been managed differently; yes, the two groups of sheep developed physiological differences.  That’s it, the rest is speculation. The literature says that reduced nutrition, anthropogenic chemicals and phytoestrogens have all produced these effects.  The researchers have no basis for plumping for one or any of these possible causes because their experimental design does not enable such a conclusion. regards Tim ---------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Akin Babatola [mailto:ABabatola@ci.santa-cruz.ca.us] Sent: 09 July 2007 00:03 To: Tim Evans; The Rubins; Ellen Z. Harrison Cc: stevens.rick@epa.gov; SMITH.JAMES@epa.gov; Moore, Michael; Ned Beecher; Chaney, Rufus; Greg Kester; Bob O'Dette; Baroldi, Layne; Sam Hadeed; eostoich@synagro.com; Meckes.Mark@epa.gov; BROBST.BOB@epamail.epa.gov; Bastian. Robert@epa.gov; pendergast.jim@epa.gov; Joseph G. Cleary; Steve Smith; Brian Chambers; Bob Davis; Gordon Hickman (SVS HQ); David Holtum; Mark Aitken; Denver, Jessie; LErnst@wef.org Subject: RE: Fw: Human sewage harms sheep foetuses Tim, I have now read the article by Paul et.al. (2005); your criticism of the article; and the authors response as published in EHP vol 114 (2) on pages A87and A88. I believe you may be misapplying a wrong principle of experimental design in criticizing this work, and by extension, the reviewers and publishers at the NIEH and EHP for its publication. It appears that you missed that a principle point of the investigation was to assess whether long-term exposure of breeding ewes to a mixture of chemicals added to pasture according to "...standard farming and European Union-recommended practices....resulted in major reductions in...hormonal functions.." Your argument seems to be that the control conditions were not identical to the treatment conditions, whereas the authors addressed standard (not identical) conditions in their study. That design should only require that the test and control animals be tightly controlled for variability, and that the field/pasture and treatment conditions be standard for the programs being evaluated. Producers of biosolids and regulators of the product according to 40CFR503 standards (and presumably also according to European standards) must know that the field conditions are going to be variable, therefore good studies will be cognisant of those values. The paper by Paul et.al. meets those standards, and EHP would have been indiligent to misapply a wrong principle of experimental design to prevent the publication of this field study. I imagine that most practicing scientists are able to understand the differences between variability experienced under standard field conditions and those attributable to poor experimental design. Thanks. ><< Rhindetal.pubs.doc >> ><< sheep_biosolids-7-6-2007.doc >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. Join Now.