A Watershed Approach to Reducing Floods
Following the 2008 floods, the original Army Corps of Engineers estimate of levee and pumping structures to "protect" Cedar Rapids from future flood damage was $1 billion dollars. Subsequently, this was judged too much money to spend on protecting Cedar Rapids. More recent estimates for smaller systems have been substantially less, but still in the hundreds of millions of dollars. These efforts would protect only parts of Cedar Rapids, meanwhile creating worse conditions for both upstream and downstream residents of the watershed. Also, these so-called "protective" systems would do nothing to alleviate or mitigate the causes leading to future flood events.
A much better solution would be for the people of Cedar Rapids, and other flood prone cities, to focus on changes in watershed practices to reduce future flooding. And this can be accomplished through the spending of political capital on a new farm bill, rather than wasting monetary capital.
In the historic past, Iowa soil was covered by deep-rooted forests, prairies, savannahs, and wetlands. Along with streams, rivers and lakes, this flora/hydrological system created a vast sponge ranging some 15 to 30 feet in depth both below and above the surface. This sponge allowed rainwater infiltration rates of between 7 to 14 inches per hour while purifying and slowly releasing the stored water for plant uptake and recharging our groundwater and aquifers.
Today's intensive, row-crop agriculture has virtually destroyed that sponge, however. Modern floods, although made worse through climate change's more extreme rain events, are mostly caused because industrial agriculture has turned the historic landscape on its head and put bare soil at the surface. With this unprotected soil reaching saturation after as little as one inch of rainfall, rainwater simply sluices soil off the surface on its way into our streams, rivers and lakes. With the more common intense rain events of today, we see the historic flooding of recent years.
But other innovative, alternative agricultural systems - which are available now - would allow us to re-perennialize most of agriculture and rebuild the topsoil "sponge" with its flood mitigating capabilities. An Iowa State University study has shown that simply interspersing annual crop fields with strips of native prairie, which can soak up 7 to 13 inches of rain per hour, can eliminate up to 95% of erosion.
By 2020, "The Land Institute's" first of four native prairie plant species bred to have large seed heads for human and animal consumption should be scaled up and ready for sale to farmers. We will be able to eat the prairie, and these crops would help rebuild Iowa's historic sponge.
We also should take livestock out of confinement buildings, which are really dangerous sewage collection facilities. Confinements create untreated sewage, hydrogen-sulfide, ammonia, methane and particulates that cause human health problems and environmental pollution. And we should remove livestock from feedlots, which often are little more than open sewers. If we put these animals on the land, much land now used for row crops could be converted to pasture. Utilizing intensive rotational grazing, that pasture land would be capable of storing up to 7 inches of rain per hour.
An important part of a rotational cropping system could be industrial hemp, a cover crop needing little or no fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides, and so important for food and fiber in early America. The prohibition surrounding hemp cultivation has been lifted in all developed countries except the US. Yet hemp ranks second only to soybeans in its percentage content of protein, and it can be used to produce food, fiber, textiles, paper, essential oils and lubricants along with many other important products. Other crops which would feed people and animals could include small grains, hays, vegetables and fruits.
The declining supply of petroleum eventually will require a move away from our current petro/chemical-dependent industrial/row crop agriculture to more sustainable crop rotations. By some estimates, that could mean the need for 40 to 60 million smaller, sustainable farmers by the end of this century. And that could revitalize our rural communities.
A more diverse, sustainable sponge agriculture would go a long way toward a flood-mitigated future for the people of Cedar Rapids and the Cedar River watershed.
A farm bill that spends political capital to promote watershed changes to reduce flooding in the future; or, if we do nothing to change agriculture, a levee and pump system costing $1 billion dollars trying to stave off the damage from the inevitable next "500 year" flood. What future would you rather have?
Bob Watson .....Larry Stone
Decorah, IA..... Elkader, IA
bobandlinda@civandinc.net
lstone@alpinecom.net
Rural school kids are being poisoned - and the bureaucrats refuse to do anything.
With most of Iowa's livestock now being raised in factory-like, industrial settings, rural residents and rural schools are being subjected to the poison sewer gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, to the explosive and greenhouse gas methane, and to particulates.
Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which include both confinements and open feedlots, act like sewers and poorly operating wastewater digesters. They create sewer environments. But unlike carefully monitored industrial or municipal sewers, CAFOs are unregulated. They can and do constantly produce poison gasses, which are blown into the rural neighborhoods 24/7, 365 days a year. This is legal because the state and federal governments have exempted confinements and feedlots from all regulation concerning these poisons and particulates. Rules that normally would protect the public from the harmful health effects of these industrial technologies do not apply to agriculture. Rural schools - and school children - receive no protection from industrial poisons produced by agriculture.
The essential question we are asking is: "Who is responsible for school children's health when they are required by law to be on school property?"
In our effort to find a solution to this problem in our county, we have gone to the Iowa DNR, our local County Board of Health, and the Iowa Department of Public Health - which checked twice with the Attorney General's office. In each instance, when we asked who might be responsible for these children's health, we have been told essentially that no one is. Apparently these poisons are not considered poisons when they are coming from industrial agriculture.
Studies have shown that negative health effects normally associated with exposure to hydrogen-sulfide, ammonia, and particulates are higher in rural Iowa than most anywhere else in the US, as a percentage of population. We used to raise most animals outside on pasture. Up until a few years ago in Iowa, we raised more animals per year outside versus what we raise now in confinements and feedlots. We didn't have these health problems in rural areas until we started using CAFOs - confinements and feedlots - with their inherent poisons and particulates.
So, who is responsible for children's health when their playgrounds and classrooms are inundated with poison sewer gasses and particulates? Do we accept the Orwellian decree from the State that these really aren't poisons when they come from industrial agriculture, and those children's health problems don't really exist?
We have been amazed and disappointed at this response - or
really the non-response - from government officials to our inquiry. The harmful
effects to human health and the environment from this modern petro-chemical
industrial model of agriculture is probably Iowa's most urgent peace and justice
issue. It is despicable that children can be sacrificed for a model of agriculture
that enriches a few corporations and leaves the rest of us living with the
shattered remains of a once vibrant farming culture.
Bob Watson
2736 Lannon Hill Rd
Decorah, IA
bobandlinda@civandinc.net
Fundamental Problems (Sept 2010)
It's not just one bad egg. There are fundamental problems across industrial confinement agriculture. In the last year, both Iowa and Minnesota have seen an ominous increase in foaming in pits beneath hog confinements - like a potentially toxic bubble bath, it rises right through floor slats - exacerbating the already serious problem of dead pigs and flash fires caused by hydrogen-sulfide and methane.
"I wish we had the answer," said Angela Rieck-Hinz of ISU, writing in August on the Iowa Manure Management Action Group website, "but at this point in time we still have no answers as to what is causing the foaming or how best to control or manage the foam. If you have information regarding foaming pits you would like to share please contact me. In the meantime, I urge caution when pumping from manure pits. Be aware of safety concerns regarding manure gases, pit fires and explosions. Not all pit fires and explosions have happened in barns with foaming pits."
The crux of the problem is that confinement advocates have inappropriately transferred wastewater technology from the highly regulated sector of municipal and industrial wastewater to the unregulated - in terms of wastewater - sector of industrial agriculture. The concern about poison and explosive gasses is not new, and not only in those confinements with the foaming problem. It is simply a consequence of using wastewater technology to raise animals.
In the wastewater industry, we learned long ago - after workers became ill or died - that we could not put normal workspaces in proximity to areas where fecal waste is decomposing. The constant production of the poison and explosive gasses - hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane - was finally taken into account in designing wastewater facilities and technology that would protect both the workers and the surrounding public. Those protections have been codified in the regulations that control municipal/industrial wastewater technology and design. But industrial agriculture remains exempt.
There may be many causes for the upswing in foaming problems in confinements. Some potential causes might include: damage to buildings and equipment through the corrosive nature of hydrogen-sulfide, genetically modified crops being fed to animals, different insecticides and herbicides applied to fields as pests and weeds become resistant to chemicals used in the past. Perhaps we will find solutions to somewhat mitigate this new foaming problem. But the bottom line is that as long as you use wastewater technology to store waste in pits below where animals are being raised, you will always have disease and death affecting both people and animals caused by these poisonous and explosive gasses.
The state Legislature, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, and corporate industrial agricultural officials steadfastly deny that confinements are a form of wastewater technology. Although seeming illogical, in fact a DNR construction permit requires this type of building, resulting in these problems.
As a society, we should question what this industrial model of agriculture is doing to us, the animals, and the environment. We have turned most of our hog producers into virtual serfs, with corporations financing and owning the buildings, the pigs, and the feed, and even controlling when the producers market the pigs. Corporations externalize their environmental costs onto the producers and the public by having the producers own the polluting waste and the dead animals. We also expect producers to deal with the unsolvable problems confinement buildings create.
Confinement technology used to raise animals is a failed model on many levels. It is time to put animals back on the land.
Bob Watson
2736 Lannon Hill Rd
Decorah, IA 52101
bobandlinda@civandinc.net
(phone for editor's use only 563-379-4147)
Iowa Op-Ed
Iowa has a double standard about sewage.
Inconsistent rules for waste from cities and industries, compared with regulations
for industrial agriculture, jeopardize water quality and punish our citizens.
State laws and regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater plants
to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits to discharge effluent.
We closely monitor these "point source" polluters.
Technology used by industrial agriculture creates the same
potential problems as municipal/industrial wastewater treatment. Unfortunately,
industrial agriculture has adopted only part of the technology - collection
and storage - without including treatment and regulated disposal. This industrialization
of animal waste converts what would have been beneficial manure, broken down
by soil, sun and microorganisms, into toxic sewage. When manure is collected
and stored for months without treatment, it becomes a noxious soup, producing
the poison gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Yet if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens, or turkeys are confined,
their excrement - amounting to the waste from a small city - is considered
to be agricultural and therefore exempt from most regulation. It's legal to
allow that "agricultural" sewage to ferment for months, venting
toxic gases into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and their
health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is spread on the land,
where it becomes "non-point pollution" that often enters our rivers,
tile lines, and groundwater.
Iowa sets strict discharge permits for municipal/industrial wastewater facilities, and the DNR is considering further restrictions: so-called anti-degradation regulations. These rules would make today's permits a baseline, with no increase in discharge allowed. Yet the State has no studies to show that the proposed rules would significantly improve water quality.
One alternative to meet new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulations, the DNR suggests, is to apply treated wastewater onto the land, instead of discharging it to a stream. But current DNR rules for municipal/ industrial systems make that option more expensive than discharging into a stream.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and expense for treated municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the untreated, air polluting, waste from industrial livestock confinements. Both the liquids and solids from confinement waste - which is more polluting than raw human sewage - are simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into Iowa's 880,000 miles of field tiles, run into streams, and enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and agricultural chemicals, so there is minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Antibiotics and hormones used by industrial livestock producers also can enter our water without treatment.
If we hope to protect Iowa's waters, we can not ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for perhaps 90% of water pollution. It's hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while industrial agriculture continues to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
The agricultural community should pay its share of the sewage treatment. Livestock producers who use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, should meet the same wastewater standards as cities and other industries. Require them to build a treatment facility, just as we do Iowa communities. If producers of livestock "sewage" can't accept this regulation, they should adopt sustainable agriculture methods that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to toxic waste.
Whatever the source, "sewage" pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage - whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements - should follow the same environmental rules.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology, please go to http://www.civandinc.net/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm
National Op-Ed
Iowa and the nation have a double standard about sewage.
Inconsistent rules for waste from cities and industries, compared with regulations
for industrial agriculture, jeopardize water quality and punish our citizens.
State laws and regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater plants
to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits to discharge effluent.
We closely monitor these "point source" polluters.
Technology used by industrial agriculture creates the same
potential problems as municipal/industrial wastewater treatment. Unfortunately,
industrial agriculture has adopted only part of the technology - collection
and storage - without including treatment and regulated disposal. This industrialization
of animal waste converts what would have been beneficial manure, broken down
by soil, sun and microorganisms, into toxic sewage. When manure is collected
and stored for months without treatment, it becomes a noxious soup, producing
the poison gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Yet if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens, or turkeys are confined,
their excrement - amounting to the waste from a small city - is considered
to be agricultural and therefore exempt from most regulation. It's legal to
allow that "agricultural" sewage to ferment for months, venting
toxic gases into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and their
health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is spread on the land,
where it becomes "non-point pollution" that often enters our rivers,
tile lines, and groundwater.
Iowa and other states set strict discharge permits for municipal/industrial wastewater facilities, and the Iowa DNR is considering further restrictions: so-called anti-degradation regulations. These rules would make today's permits a baseline, with no increase in discharge allowed. Yet the State has no studies to show that the proposed rules would significantly improve water quality.
One alternative to meet new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulations, the Iowa DNR suggests, is to apply treated wastewater onto the land, instead of discharging it to a stream. But current Iowa DNR rules for municipal/ industrial systems make that option more expensive than discharging into a stream.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and expense for treated municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the untreated, air polluting, waste from industrial livestock confinements. Both the liquids and solids from confinement waste - which is more polluting than raw human sewage - are simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into Iowa's 880,000 miles of field tiles, run into streams, and enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and agricultural chemicals, so there is minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Antibiotics and hormones used by industrial livestock producers also can enter our water without treatment.
If we hope to protect Iowa's and the nation's waters, we can not ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for perhaps 90% of water pollution in agricultural states such as Iowa. It's hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while industrial agriculture continues to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
The agricultural community should pay its share of the sewage treatment. Livestock producers who use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, should meet the same wastewater standards as cities and other industries. Require them to build a treatment facility, just as we do communities. If producers of livestock "sewage" can't accept this regulation, they should adopt sustainable agriculture methods that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to toxic waste.
Whatever the source, "sewage" pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage - whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements - should follow the same environmental rules.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology,
please go to http://www.civandinc.net/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm
DNR Anti-Degradation Comments
The state’s inconsistent rules for waste from cities and
industries, compared with the regulations that apply to industrial agriculture,
are jeopardizing our water quality and punishing the citizens of our communities.
State laws and agency regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment plants to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits
to discharge effluent from their treatment facilities. We know who these “point
source” polluters are, and we strive to keep them in check.
We also know that municipal/industrial wastewater technology
and industrial agricultural confinement technology are the same technologies
with the same potential pollution problems. We know these technologies are
the same by description, by their inherent poison byproducts, and by Iowa
Code. Unfortunately, when this technology is used by industrial agriculture,
we turn what would have been biologically benign beneficial manure, broken
down by soil, sun and microorganisms, into a toxic sewage. To compound the
problem, industrial agriculture adopted only the first half of wastewater
technology - collection and storage - without adopting the second half –
treatment, regulation, protection, and education. Thus, agricultural waste
is collected and stored for months without treatment, meanwhile “cooking”
and turning into a toxic soup, which constantly generates the poison sewer
gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia.
But, as it stands today, if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens,
or turkeys are confined in a building, their excrement, amounting to the
waste from a small city, is considered to be agricultural and therefore exempt
from most regulation. It’s legal to allow that “agricultural”
sewage to ferment for months, all the while venting the resulting toxic gases
into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and scientific studies
show that their health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is
spread on the land, where it becomes “non-point pollution” that
often enters our rivers, streams, tile lines, and groundwater.
In recent years Iowa has adopted stricter discharge permits for point source municipal/industrial wastewater facilities. The DNR is now considering further restrictions on point source dischargers: so-called anti-degradation regulations. With the adoption of anti-degradation rules, today’s permits would be a baseline and no increase in discharge limits would be allowed in the future. It is an attempt to keep the waters of the state from degrading any further due to increased pollution from dischargers. Yet the State has no documentation to show there would be a significant decrease in the ongoing degradation of Iowa waters if anti-degradation rules are adopted for point source dischargers.
To meet this new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulation, the DNR is suggesting alternatives to discharging liquid effluent to a stream or river. One alternative would be applying the treated liquid effluent onto the land. The DNR has strict rules for land applying effluent from municipal and industrial systems, which makes land application more expensive than discharging their effluent into a stream. Small communities, with a high proportion of senior citizens and young people, would especially feel the financial pinch.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and more expense for municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the completely untreated waste from an industrial livestock confinement. Remember, the manure from a confinement sits for months in a pit, tank or lagoon, where it becomes a toxic brew that spews poisons into the air. Eventually, both the liquids and solids from the untreated confinement waste – which is more polluting than raw human sewage – is simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into the state’s 880,000 miles of field tiles or run into adjacent streams, then quickly enter our rivers. Worse yet, it can enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Because many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and heavy application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, there is only minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Likewise, the antibiotics and hormones commonly used by industrial livestock producers can enter our water without treatment.
If state officials hope to stop the degradation of Iowa’s waters, it does not make sense to ignore the component of agriculture, which accounts for perhaps 90% of our water pollution. To be sure, it’s hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while continuing to allow industrial agriculture to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
It’s time to require the agricultural community to pay its share of the clean-up. If livestock producers wish to use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, we should apply the same standards to the wastewater from those confinement operations as we do to municipal/industrial wastewater treatment facilities. We should require them to build a treatment facility, just as we impose that requirement on Iowa communities. If producers of livestock “sewage” don’t want this regulation, they should adopt sustainable models of agriculture that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to a toxic waste.
Whatever the source, “sewage” pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage – whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements – should follow the same environmental rules. Until this happens, it is our position to resist any further regulations being put on point source dischargers; including these anti-degradation regulations.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology, please go to http://www.civandinc.net/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm
Is the Pork You Eat Raised in a Sewer?
A Discussion of the Science Linking Sewer Pipes and Hog Confinement Buildings.
Jan 2000
(original paper from the perspective of confinements as wastewater technology)
We have unwittingly loosed an environmental disaster upon
ourselves. We have inadvertently adopted parts of the sewer industry's technology
for our hog confinement systems without the federally required safeguards
or the end sewage treatment process. We have taken a system used to transport
raw sewage and inappropriately adopted it to raise meat for human consumption.
It is my claim that if you eat pork raised in a confinement you are eating
pork raised in a sewer pipe.
Both a sewer pipe and a hog confinement building are closed structures with
raw sewage in the bottom constantly generating poison sewer gases. Some
confinements have a storage tank directly underneath the hogs. Others have
a slope system which collects the sewage which is then periodically flushed
or pumped to an outside lagoon or slurry tank. Similarly, a sewer pipe is
slightly slanted so that sewage flows downhill. Human sewage, unlike hog
sewage, is ultimately treated and rendered safe to the environment.
As in a sewer pipe, sewage in a confinement building is constantly generating
the poison gases hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia. If sewer personnel are to
perform any work in a sewer environment, called a "confined space"
in the industry, many federally mandated procedures must be followed, and
federally mandated equipment must be used. These requirements are a result
of understanding the whys of sewer industry related deaths and diseases
from hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. One of the most important requirements
is the ventilation of the work space so that workers are not overcome or
killed by the poison gasses. Similarly, confinement buildings must constantly
be ventilated so workers and hogs are not killed by these same gases.
Unlike the strict regulation in the sewer industry, which allows only short,
regulated shifts in a confined space, workers in confinements have no education
about or regulation of the dangerous environment in which they must work.
That the two environments are the same is evident in the studies that have
been conducted in both industries concerning the gases present, the diseases
caused by those gases, and the deaths caused by those gases.
The scientific studies of hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia underpinning federal
regulation of the sewer industry have been accepted for thirty years. Likewise,
the federal regulations themselves have been settled law for thirty years
and no questions exist about their correctness.
There are scientific papers studying these same gases, hydrogen-sulfide
and ammonia, in confinements. Some of those papers are:
There are dozens and probably hundreds of other studies worldwide concerning
gases and human diseases caused by those gases in confinement systems.
A sample from these studies will show they are concerned with some of the
same gases and resulting diseases as are found in the Occupational and Health
Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations concerning hydrogen-sulfide and
ammonia. From the confinement studies:
"Approximately 60% of swine production workers complain of at least
one respiratory symptom, most of which are acute symptoms. Among this group
of workers with respiratory symptoms, approximately 30% also experience
chronic bronchitis, 30% have reactive airway disease, and 30% experience
episodes of organic dust toxic syndrome. These conditions can be directly
attributable to exposure to aerosolized dust and its biologically active
constituents (endotoxin, allergens) in addition to gases such as ammonia
and hydrogen-sulfide."
"Compared to control populations of urban workers and crop farmers,
workers in enclosed livestock environments have a higher prevalence of respiratory
symptoms such as cough, phlegm, wheezing, and dyspnea. Confinement workers
also exhibit decreased pulmonary function indicative of both chronic and
acute effects (Boyer, 1974; Thelin,1984; Stahuliak-Berinc, 1977; Brouwer,
1986; Holness,1987; Donham, 1989;Reynolds, 1993; Donham, 1984; Muller, 1986;
Petro, 1978)."
Pigs are affected by these gases the same as people. The original OSHA limits
for humans in part were established, ironically, from studies on pigs. From
the Federal OSHA Rules and Regulations:
"The ACGIH (1986/Ex. 1-3) believes that a 8-hour TWA limit is necessary
for ammonia because a study by Stombaugh, Teague, and Roller (1960/Ex. 1-29)
reports that pigs exposed continuously to 103 to 145 ppm ammonia reduced
their consumption of food and lost weight. The ACGIH interprets this study
to mean that systemic toxicity occurs as a result of chronic exposure to
ammonia. However, OSHA interprets this study differently, believing instead
that it shows a secondary effect of the irritation traditionally associated
with ammonia exposure. That is, in OSHA's view, these pigs stopped eating
because they were experiencing too much respiratory and eye irritation to
be interested in their food." The more recent studies on humans indicate
adverse effects from ammonia at concentrations as low as 7 ppm.
Now, from the OSHA studies on hydrogen-sulfide (which the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency has measured at 30 times the federal limit at confinement
sites):
"Summary of toxicology- Hydrogen-sulfide gas is a rapidly acting systemic
poison which causes respiratory paralysis with consequent asphyxia at high
concentrations. It irritates the eyes and respiratory tract at low concentrations.
Inhalation of high concentrations of hydrogen-sulfide, 1000 to 2000 ppm,
may cause coma after a single breath and may be rapidly fatal; convulsions
may also occur. Exposure to concentrations of hydrogen-sulfide above 50
ppm for one hour may produce acute conjunctivitis with pain, lacrimation,
and photophobia; in severe form this may progress to keratoconjunctivitis
and vesiculation of the corneal epithelium. In low concentrations, hydrogen-sulfide
may cause headache, fatigue, irritability, insomnia, and gastrointestinal
disturbances; in somewhat higher concentrations it affects the central nervous
system, causing excitement and dizziness. Prolonged exposure to 250 ppm
of hydrogen-sulfide may cause pulmonary edema. Prolonged exposure to concentrations
of hydrogen-sulfide as low as 50 ppm may cause rhinitis, pharyngitis, bronchitis,
and pnuemonitis. Repeated exposure to hydrogen sulfide results in systemic
effects that may result from concentrations previously tolerated without
any effect. Rapid olfactory fatigue can occur at high concentrations."
And the OSHA ammonia studies:
"Summary of toxicology- Ammonia vapor is a severe irritant of the eyes,
especially the cornea, the respiratory tract, and skin. Inhalation of concentrations
of 2500 to 6500 ppm causes dyspnea, bronchospasm, chest pain and pulmonary
edema which may be fatal; production of pink frothy sputum often occurs.
Consequences can include bronchitis or pneumonia; some residual reduction
in pulmonary function has been reported. In a human experimental study which
exposed 10 subjects to various vapor concentrations for 5 minutes, 134 ppm
caused irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat in most subjects and 1 person
complained of chest irritation; at 72 ppm, several reported the same symptoms;
at 50 ppm, 2 reported nasal dryness and at 32 ppm only 1 reported nasal
dryness."
In effect, the diseases and dangers are the same in sewers and confinements,
which you would expect, because the gases and sewage and closed environment
are the same.
It has been mentioned to me the ag industry people are going to argue with
the studies on confinements. I think that misses the point. Because sewage
in a closed environment, generating hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia, is common
to both sewer pipes and confinements, we know for certain, from the federal
studies, what the effects on humans and the hogs will be. I doubt the ag
industry experts will want to argue with OSHA over its hydrogen-sulfide
and ammonia regulations.
We know that humans in the confinement industry have died from sewer gases.
We know that thousands of hogs in confinements have died from sewer gases.
We know that people working in confinements suffer the same diseases as
sewer workers. We know that pathogens associated with sewage and antibiotic
resistant bacteria have been found in wells and waterways around confinements.
We know that spills of untreated hog manure kill aquatic life the same as
spills of untreated human waste. We know these sewer gases from confinements
are constantly vented directly into the air and into the neighborhoods surrounding
confinements.
So, we now know that sewer pipes and confinement systems are the same. I
suggest to you that if you eat pork raised in a confinement, you are eating
pork raised in a sewer. There can be no technological fix to make confinements
safe because confinements, like sewer pipes, always have sewage and poison
gases. Therefore, I believe confinements are an inappropriate technology
for agriculture and Iowa, and should be immediately phased out. Environment-,
people-, and pig-friendly systems exist today (such as hoop houses with
deep bed systems) which can handle production without stinking up Iowa or
harming or killing its people, its animals and its places.
Because this was an inadvertent rather than an intentional outcome of the
rush to progress, I believe it is incumbent upon us all to share in the
costs of the transition to non-polluting, non-dangerous technologies. We
know what we've done, and, we know what to do about it.