When it comes to the risks of beneficial use, the academic view differs markedly from public perception. The situation is quite similar to the divergent views on nuclear power. Several reasons are offered. Just as the association of radioactivity with weapons of mass destruction biases opinions on nuclear power, so the perception of biosolids recycling is unalterably tied to visceral reactions to human wastes. Public opinion is an echo of the major print and broadcast media, which seem more interested in promoting distrust and paranoia than providing objective, balanced reporting.
Academics are suspicious of shallow statements calculated to alarm.
Finally, those in academia are more aware that no activity is risk free, and as repugnant as it is to some, that we routinely make decisions that place a dollar value on a human life. A risk-based approach is the most appropriate protection paradigm. There are two basic types of protection paradigms for beneficial use. This ideology finds expression in guidelines that prohibit soil metal levels from exceeding background concentrations. Thus metal additions from biosolids must balance those lost through crop removal, leaching, and erosion.