Bioterrorism by biosolids

The following comments pertain to the change in heading which LNE made in my letter of yesterday to the Editor,
from: "Bioterrorism by biosolids" to: "Monitor incoming sewage sludge with care".

To "monitor with care" is not sufficient under present circumstances, because:
(1) the task has been delegated to the sludge spreaders, not unlike having the fox guard the chicken house.
(2) the regulations are woefully inadequate and the application limits of toxics set by the EPA
are too high compared with European limits - in the case of Cadmium as much as 30x as high.
(3) monitoring should most definitely include the effects of the use of biosolids on public health -
which the EPA presently neglects
(4) results of the monitoring should be available to the public by posting them on the WWW -
while now the EPA hides adverse reports and continuously denies that there are victims
caused by sewage sludge applications.

We should be warned and prepared about this important issue.
Just as Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" alerted us decades ago and caused us to discontinue using some toxics,
Stauber and Rampton's "Toxic sludge is good for you" exposes the lies of PR firms retained by the EPA
to conduct propaganda in favor of biosolids.