4 ms·

"The authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution: the use of paper mill sludge as fertilizer on farmland near drinking water catchments." You

"The authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution: the use of paper mill sludge as fertilizer on farmland near drinking water catchments." You have to be incredibly greedy and stupid to use industrial waste as fertilizer

kzrdude 1y ago
It is not greedy to try to create a more circular system where waste products are reused
- jonplackett 1y ago
  It is if those waste products are drastically cheaper than what you should be using
  - marky1991 1y ago
    Why? Are you saying we should only do waste reduction if it's expensive? "Should" here is doing a lot of work, it makes the argument circular imo.
    - arbitrary_name 1y ago
      We should only do waste reduction if it doesn't result in wide scale poisoning of aquifers and biomes. Does that sound more agreeable?
      - marky1991 1y ago
        Yeah, that position makes sense.
- andrewstuart 1y ago
  Keep toxins out of landfill at any possible cost no matter how high, including poisoning ourselves. Landfill is precious and sacred and must not be used.
  - sandy_coyote 1y ago
    The problem is not that people disagree with this, it's that people didn't know about the presence of these chemicals in biosolids until recently.
    - andrewstuart 1y ago
      We have a general problem in our society in which people are desperate to NOT put stuff in landfill, and fail to realize that stuff is toxic and should not be reused. It should be thrown away. “We didn’t know that used stuff was toxic.” Does not hold as an argument because stuff for recycling is often toxic it’s something we know, everyone should know, it’s obvious, assume it, don’t keep coming back saying “hey didn’t realize this or that was toxic and should be in landfill instead of recycled”. Don’t recycle plastic and paper and use it for food and drink. Don’t recycle car tires into roads and playgrounds and later realize they leach microplastics and are cancer causing. We need to stop recycling toxic shit then saying “we didn’t know”.
      - Nifty3929 1y ago
        Landfills are remarkably environmentally friendly and safe, with plenty, plenty of room. Landfills are a GREAT place to put things we don't want to use anymore. Recycling is nice too, if it works out, which isn't as often as we'd like to think.
  - Nifty3929 1y ago
    I don't think your sarcasm was picked up here :-)
psadri 1y ago
Similar to the source of Mad-cow disease: feeding animal remains to cattle in the UK.
- dmbche 1y ago
  Animals are still fed animal remains as their diet on farms all arouns the world, including the US and Europe. Just more carefully.
chii 1y ago
There are lots of water treatment plants that produce organic sludge, which gets dried and used as bulk fertilizer/organic material in some farms. It's probably quite common.
speff 1y ago
"Industrial waste" can cover a lot of different types of materials - not all of which are worthless. It would be worse if waste products from one industry are sent to a dump when they can be re-used for other productive purposes.
- hammock 1y ago
  One might argue it would not be worse for PFAS to remain in a dump rather than spread on fields of food we will eat or water we will drink
  - speff 1y ago
    I'm pretty sure everyone would take that position so I'm confused why you're implying I wouldn't. "authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution" Tells me that they don't have proof this is the source of the PFAS pollution. If they did, they wouldn't "favor" the explanation, they would just say that's the explanation. I don't support making wide changes based on hunches. Sure - replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. But there is a cost associated w/ doing that and that cost has higher-order effects.
    - margalabargala 1y ago
      > replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. Or, just ban things with high levels of pfas being used as fertilizer, and test the paper slurry?
      - speff 1y ago
        That would be a valid solution, yes. But it sounds a bit too simple? My concern here is - wouldn't someone have already tested the slurry and made the determination that's it's suitable/unsuitable? This article doesn't really go into the details there
nayuki 1y ago
Why does the paper contain PFAS? It's not like wood products naturally contain fluorine. Is it like water-repellent paper used in food packaging?
- LunaSea 1y ago
  Might be due to lubricant that is applied to the various saws and machines.
  - nayuki 1y ago
    You make a good point there. I found https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-forever-chemicals-pfas-toilet-paper https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-fo... : > Toilet paper should be considered as a potentially major source of PFAS entering wastewater treatment systems > The PFAS levels detected are low enough to suggest the chemicals are used in the manufacturing process to prevent paper pulp from sticking to machinery, Thompson said. PFAS are often used as lubricants in the manufacturing process and some of the chemicals are commonly left on or in consumer goods. > In a statement to WSVN in Florida, a trade group representing the toilet paper industry said no PFAS is added to toilet paper. Thompson said “evidence seems to suggest otherwise” though it may be true that PFAS are not intentionally added. > Researchers detected six PFAS compounds, with 6:2 diPAP representing the highest levels. The compound has not been robustly studied, but is linked to testicular dysfunction. The study also found PFOA, a highly toxic compound, and 6:2 diPAP can turn into PFOA once in the environment.
- dmbche 1y ago
  Paper mills produce cardbord and paper used for drinking/eating on (coffee cups for example) which have a layer of pfas to insulate them (the inside is a little slippery). This is a big big part of the industry, as it's worth a lot by weight compared to other paper products I'd bet there.
  - alejohausner 1y ago
    That’s kind of scary in itself. I’ll make a note to avoid drinking coffee from paper cups in the future! PFAs are everywhere in food packaging too. It’s disturbing.
HPsquared 1y ago
This is the downside of recycling. A lot of it involves trade-offs.
dust42 1y ago
Same happened in Germany: in the region of Mittelbaden, harmful per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFAS or PFC) have been contaminating groundwater and arable land for years. The district of Rastatt, which is particularly affected, holds a compost producer responsible for the widespread contamination. In the region, about 1,100 hectares of arable land and approximately 170 million cubic meters of groundwater are polluted. The beginning of the scandal dates back to 1999. That's when a compost company started processing so-called paper sludges. These are waste materials from the paper industry and are believed to have contained PFAS. The company mixed these wastes with compost and spread them on fields—until a regulatory ban in 2008. According to reports, the PFAS eventually entered the drinking water via soil and groundwater.
- colechristensen 1y ago
  Probably from putting PFAS in food handling products to make containers for greasy foods
hammock 1y ago
It happens everywhere. Including the US. One such story: PFAS contamination found on more than 100 Maine farms. https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/15/pfas-contamination-found-on-more-than-100-maine-farms/ https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/15/pfas-contamination-fo... And of course we have even added industrial waste directly to our drinking water, on purpose: https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr...

kzrdude 1y ago

It is not greedy to try to create a more circular system where waste products are reused

jonplackett 1y ago
It is if those waste products are drastically cheaper than what you should be using
- marky1991 1y ago
  Why? Are you saying we should only do waste reduction if it's expensive? "Should" here is doing a lot of work, it makes the argument circular imo.
  - arbitrary_name 1y ago
    We should only do waste reduction if it doesn't result in wide scale poisoning of aquifers and biomes. Does that sound more agreeable?
    - marky1991 1y ago
      Yeah, that position makes sense.
andrewstuart 1y ago
Keep toxins out of landfill at any possible cost no matter how high, including poisoning ourselves. Landfill is precious and sacred and must not be used.
- sandy_coyote 1y ago
  The problem is not that people disagree with this, it's that people didn't know about the presence of these chemicals in biosolids until recently.
  - andrewstuart 1y ago
    We have a general problem in our society in which people are desperate to NOT put stuff in landfill, and fail to realize that stuff is toxic and should not be reused. It should be thrown away. “We didn’t know that used stuff was toxic.” Does not hold as an argument because stuff for recycling is often toxic it’s something we know, everyone should know, it’s obvious, assume it, don’t keep coming back saying “hey didn’t realize this or that was toxic and should be in landfill instead of recycled”. Don’t recycle plastic and paper and use it for food and drink. Don’t recycle car tires into roads and playgrounds and later realize they leach microplastics and are cancer causing. We need to stop recycling toxic shit then saying “we didn’t know”.
    - Nifty3929 1y ago
      Landfills are remarkably environmentally friendly and safe, with plenty, plenty of room. Landfills are a GREAT place to put things we don't want to use anymore. Recycling is nice too, if it works out, which isn't as often as we'd like to think.
- Nifty3929 1y ago
  I don't think your sarcasm was picked up here :-)

psadri 1y ago

Similar to the source of Mad-cow disease: feeding animal remains to cattle in the UK.

dmbche 1y ago
Animals are still fed animal remains as their diet on farms all arouns the world, including the US and Europe. Just more carefully.

chii 1y ago

There are lots of water treatment plants that produce organic sludge, which gets dried and used as bulk fertilizer/organic material in some farms. It's probably quite common.

speff 1y ago

"Industrial waste" can cover a lot of different types of materials - not all of which are worthless. It would be worse if waste products from one industry are sent to a dump when they can be re-used for other productive purposes.

hammock 1y ago
One might argue it would not be worse for PFAS to remain in a dump rather than spread on fields of food we will eat or water we will drink
- speff 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure everyone would take that position so I'm confused why you're implying I wouldn't. "authorities currently favor one explanation for the pollution" Tells me that they don't have proof this is the source of the PFAS pollution. If they did, they wouldn't "favor" the explanation, they would just say that's the explanation. I don't support making wide changes based on hunches. Sure - replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. But there is a cost associated w/ doing that and that cost has higher-order effects.
  - margalabargala 1y ago
    > replace the fertilizer with something else for a while and see if that changes the PFAS levels. If it does, sure ban the paper products from being used as fertilizer. Or, just ban things with high levels of pfas being used as fertilizer, and test the paper slurry?
    - speff 1y ago
      That would be a valid solution, yes. But it sounds a bit too simple? My concern here is - wouldn't someone have already tested the slurry and made the determination that's it's suitable/unsuitable? This article doesn't really go into the details there

nayuki 1y ago

Why does the paper contain PFAS? It's not like wood products naturally contain fluorine. Is it like water-repellent paper used in food packaging?

LunaSea 1y ago
Might be due to lubricant that is applied to the various saws and machines.
- nayuki 1y ago
  You make a good point there. I found https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-forever-chemicals-pfas-toilet-paper https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/13/toxic-fo... : > Toilet paper should be considered as a potentially major source of PFAS entering wastewater treatment systems > The PFAS levels detected are low enough to suggest the chemicals are used in the manufacturing process to prevent paper pulp from sticking to machinery, Thompson said. PFAS are often used as lubricants in the manufacturing process and some of the chemicals are commonly left on or in consumer goods. > In a statement to WSVN in Florida, a trade group representing the toilet paper industry said no PFAS is added to toilet paper. Thompson said “evidence seems to suggest otherwise” though it may be true that PFAS are not intentionally added. > Researchers detected six PFAS compounds, with 6:2 diPAP representing the highest levels. The compound has not been robustly studied, but is linked to testicular dysfunction. The study also found PFOA, a highly toxic compound, and 6:2 diPAP can turn into PFOA once in the environment.
dmbche 1y ago
Paper mills produce cardbord and paper used for drinking/eating on (coffee cups for example) which have a layer of pfas to insulate them (the inside is a little slippery). This is a big big part of the industry, as it's worth a lot by weight compared to other paper products I'd bet there.
- alejohausner 1y ago
  That’s kind of scary in itself. I’ll make a note to avoid drinking coffee from paper cups in the future! PFAs are everywhere in food packaging too. It’s disturbing.

HPsquared 1y ago

This is the downside of recycling. A lot of it involves trade-offs.

dust42 1y ago

Same happened in Germany: in the region of Mittelbaden, harmful per- and polyfluorinated chemicals (PFAS or PFC) have been contaminating groundwater and arable land for years. The district of Rastatt, which is particularly affected, holds a compost producer responsible for the widespread contamination. In the region, about 1,100 hectares of arable land and approximately 170 million cubic meters of groundwater are polluted. The beginning of the scandal dates back to 1999. That's when a compost company started processing so-called paper sludges. These are waste materials from the paper industry and are believed to have contained PFAS. The company mixed these wastes with compost and spread them on fields—until a regulatory ban in 2008. According to reports, the PFAS eventually entered the drinking water via soil and groundwater.

colechristensen 1y ago
Probably from putting PFAS in food handling products to make containers for greasy foods

hammock 1y ago

It happens everywhere. Including the US. One such story: PFAS contamination found on more than 100 Maine farms. https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/15/pfas-contamination-found-on-more-than-100-maine-farms/ https://www.pressherald.com/2025/01/15/pfas-contamination-fo... And of course we have even added industrial waste directly to our drinking water, on purpose: https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-transformation-industrial-waste-public-health-miracle https://origins.osu.edu/article/toxic-treatment-fluorides-tr...