!
of sulfur dioxide, and 200 tons of particulates Equipment such as pumps and
dredges at the land treatment site would produce fewer pollutants, although
the exact amount was not determined in the Army Corps study.
Crop irrigation with domestic wastes is attractive from an ecological
point of view since it returns nutrients to nature in a constructive way. Theo—
retically, this method comes much closer to completing the natural cycle
than disposing of wastes in stream water, since food nutrients originally ob‘
tained by man in the United States most often come directly from the land in
î
the form of crops or indirectly in the form of grain-fed animals. Although the
land treatment theory is sound, there are problems in its implementation.
First of all, soil has only a limited purication capacity that is dependent
upon a number of factors, probably the most important being the amount of
oxygen present to support the natural microbial decomposition of wastes [53].
A modern problem is that municipal wastes—particulary sludges—often contain industrial contaminants, among
them heavy metals such as zinc and cop—
per which can build up
in the soil to concentrations that are poisonous to
plants [54]. In addition, there is some evidence that cadmium and lead con—
taminants in the wastes could be taken up by plants in amounts that might
prove hazardous to man or animals [55].
The irrigation alternative, While clearly worthy of considerable study
[56], once again demonstrates that nature will accommodate man only to a
certain degree. That is, the natural biological cycles are benecial to us only
as long as we do not disrupt them with large quantities of poisonous inventions from factory and laboratory Which cannot be changed into substances
that support life.
Fauliy Control Strategy
Historically, municipal treatment plants have been regarded as places to pipe
human wastes, and this has lured us into heavily emphasizing those facilities
in overall pollution control strategy without much critical thought. The very
term “pollution control” implies that the basic solution lies in control and not
in dealing With the original sources and causes of pollution. Despite their own
commitment to the municipal treatment program, EPA officials mused in one
of their 1961 reports:
The tentative conclusion that waste treatment is no more than a convenient
point
of departure for any meaningful strategy of water pollution control is
re1nforced by examination of the sources of recent increases of pollutants. Un—
derlyrng the growth of available biochemical oxygen demand and of phos—
phorus are basic economic forces. To counter the polluting effects of funda—
mental features of the twentieth century, technology and social organization
would seem to call for fundamental remedies. [57]
The examples
Of pOlluting activities here and in the preceding chapter
only
mtrmate the strong economic and social forces generating those activi—
tles. There is room here only to point out the clear need for a better under—
1 16
Thirsty Technology
of sulfur dioxide, and 200 tons of particulates Equipment such as pumps and
dredges at the land treatment site would produce fewer pollutants, although
the exact amount was not determined in the Army Corps study.
Crop irrigation with domestic wastes is attractive from an ecological
point of view since it returns nutrients to nature in a constructive way. Theo—
retically, this method comes much closer to completing the natural cycle
than disposing of wastes in stream water, since food nutrients originally ob‘
tained by man in the United States most often come directly from the land in
î
the form of crops or indirectly in the form of grain-fed animals. Although the
land treatment theory is sound, there are problems in its implementation.
First of all, soil has only a limited purication capacity that is dependent
upon a number of factors, probably the most important being the amount of
oxygen present to support the natural microbial decomposition of wastes [53].
A modern problem is that municipal wastes—particulary sludges—often contain industrial contaminants, among
them heavy metals such as zinc and cop—
per which can build up
in the soil to concentrations that are poisonous to
plants [54]. In addition, there is some evidence that cadmium and lead con—
taminants in the wastes could be taken up by plants in amounts that might
prove hazardous to man or animals [55].
The irrigation alternative, While clearly worthy of considerable study
[56], once again demonstrates that nature will accommodate man only to a
certain degree. That is, the natural biological cycles are benecial to us only
as long as we do not disrupt them with large quantities of poisonous inventions from factory and laboratory Which cannot be changed into substances
that support life.
Fauliy Control Strategy
Historically, municipal treatment plants have been regarded as places to pipe
human wastes, and this has lured us into heavily emphasizing those facilities
in overall pollution control strategy without much critical thought. The very
term “pollution control” implies that the basic solution lies in control and not
in dealing With the original sources and causes of pollution. Despite their own
commitment to the municipal treatment program, EPA officials mused in one
of their 1961 reports:
The tentative conclusion that waste treatment is no more than a convenient
point
of departure for any meaningful strategy of water pollution control is
re1nforced by examination of the sources of recent increases of pollutants. Un—
derlyrng the growth of available biochemical oxygen demand and of phos—
phorus are basic economic forces. To counter the polluting effects of funda—
mental features of the twentieth century, technology and social organization
would seem to call for fundamental remedies. [57]
The examples
Of pOlluting activities here and in the preceding chapter
only
mtrmate the strong economic and social forces generating those activi—
tles. There is room here only to point out the clear need for a better under—
1 16
Thirsty Technology