The U.S. government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil.
The material is produced by power plant "scrubbers" that remove acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide from plant emissions. The substance is a synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, and it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.
The Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts. But some environmentalists say too little is known about how the material affects crops, and ultimately human health.
As you may know, coal-fired plants produce about 50 percent of the power in the US, and are a major source of environmental pollution. One of its byproducts is FGD gypsum (flue gas desulfurization gypsum). Not surprisingly, the standard solution is to develop a scheme to sweep the problem under the rug and make money doing it.
In this case, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has begun promoting what they call "wastes beneficial uses," in order to deal with industrial byproducts.
This is history repeating itself ad nauseum.
The plot to use of FGD gypsum on agricultural soils is virtually identical to the story of how the toxic byproduct fluoride was deemed beneficial to human health, once it became too costly for the aluminum industry to clean it up.
If you're not yet aware of how the "beneficial waste uses" of fluoride came about, you may want to take a look at it now, because these two stories are hauntingly familiar.
Ironically, while the EPA and USDA are recommending the use of this toxic byproduct on fields, the Obama administration is also in the process of drafting the first federal standards for storage and disposal of coal wastes. The White House and the EPA are currently at odds over how to handle the more than 125 million tons of coal ash and sludge waste generated each year, reports the Wall Street Journal.
According to the Associated Press, this action was prompted by a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, TN, just over a year ago. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish. The cleanup will cost an estimated $1 billion.
It's logically challenging to accept that while an accidental coal waste spill is environmentally devastating, the willful spreading coal waste on farm lands, year after year, would be environmentally sound.
Granted, the combined contents of the spill was likely far more toxic than FGD gypsum alone, but we're still talking about adding toxins to our farm lands, and no matter how minute these toxins are, they will eventually accumulate.
Why would we want to do this to ourselves, and to our future generations?
EPA Wants Farmers to Spread Toxic Coal Waste on Fields
-
EPA Wants Farmers to Spread Toxic Coal Waste on Fields
By Dr. Mercola
Mercola, January 16, 2010
Straight to the Source
