Talk:Biosolids

message: --Alex 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

message: I think that sludge, sewage sludge treatment, and this article should all be merged somehow, as they all contain very similar topics. Also see the Talk:sewage sludge treatment as I have added some info on the solids processes. JAK83 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea. I would rename sewage sludge treatment to just sewage sludge then merge in sludge and make sludge a disamb to include industrial sludge, water treatment sludge, etc. I would leave biosolids as a separate article due to the political and social aspects it has that are not shared by sludges that are not distributed as CFR 503 biosolids. --Justanother 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that biosolids needs to remain a separate article. OptimistBen (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with OptimistBen that "biosolids" is a very distinct term from the more generic "sludge", or even "sewage sludge".  "Sewage sludge" could be a section of the general sludge article, and could have it's own standalone article if enough content is there.  Any of these can (and perhaps should) mention biosolids, but this article should remain separate.  —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I fourth the idea to re-name "biosolids" as "sewage sludge treatment" and then merge it as a part of sludge,and keep biosolids as a seprate article,only more info is needed like farmers thinking about using "biosolids",etc,etc.Kyo kara mazuko (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. This article now redirects to Sludge, which contains all relevant info from old biosolids article.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Undone. A new page for biosolids has been created. See also talk page of sewage sludge treatment for further information. EvM-Susana (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Merge and Re-name? 

message: The information in the introduction of this article and throughout the article is very one-sided and non-neutral to the topic of biosolids, and their use. This is very anti-biosolid and does not present an accurate depiction of the information.
TRL 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a reference that ought to be integrated in the article   MaxPont (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Neutral page. 

message: There is a lack of citation evidence given for the claims about prions. There is very clearly a lack of scientific consensus on the existence of prions post-processing, but the article reads like a fact- Shalloran031 2 June, 2017
:I have not found any studies documenting elimination or significant degradation of prions post-processing in WWTP except for unsupported industry claims and obfuscation of the term pathogen.  There are numerous studies highlighting this environmental impact concern as a topic for further urgent research.  In fact, prion sterilization of biosolids at scale would be a significant scientific achievement.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion#Sterilization 
:Prions in the environment - Occurrence, fate and mitigation
:"Based on these studies, it can be assumed that most prion infectivity will be conserved during normal wastewater treatment processes, and prions would thus enter the environment, highly diluted, via landfill disposal or landspreading of biosolids."  
:Microbiology of hospital wastewater
:"Prions are likely to enter through live, infected hosts, and can be shred through saliva, urine, feces, mucus, and blood; and they enter in wastewater through hospital effluents, research facilities, homes, slaughterhouses, and mortuaries [208]. The WWTPs are not able to treat prions, for instance, after entering into municipal WWTP, the prions bind to sewage sludge, survive through anaerobic digestion and are further present in treated biosolids. These biosolids are further used for land application, which results in their introduction into environment. Thereafter they can be swept by wind and contaminated water with prions could further migrate into lakes, rivers, and oceans and thus, directly affecting the humans, aquatic life, and animals as well [209]."  
:Cervids: Chronic Wasting Disease Specifics
:Transmissible spongiform ecephalopathy (TSE) actuated by prions is "unusually resistant to inactivation" and "extremely persistent in the environment" 
:Long-Term Incubation PrP CWD with Soils Affects Prion Recovery but Not Infectivity
:"This study shows that although recovery of PrPCWD bound to soil minerals and whole soils with time become more difficult, prion infectivity is not significantly altered. Detection of prions in soil is, therefore, not only affected by soil type but also by length of time of the prion-soil interaction." 
:Current evidence on the transmissibility of chronic wasting disease prions to humans-A systematic review
:"Therefore, future discovery of CWD transmission to humans cannot be entirely ruled out on the basis of current studies, particularly in the light of possible decades-long incubation periods for CWD prions in humans. It would be prudent to continue CWD research and epidemiologic surveillance, exercise caution when handling potentially contaminated material and explore CWD management opportunities."
:The risk level of prion disease transmission from applied biosolids has not been quantified and is open for further scientific study and debate.  However, without any opposing citations, the existence of prions post-processing in WWTP and the transmissibility of infectious prions in the environment is currently scientific consensus.  As is the likelihood of infectious prions entering the waste stream with the continued spread of prion based diseases like CWD.  Additionally, the definition of infectious prions and prion based disease vectors is expanding, although this science is far from settled.  
:I suggest the subject of prions be added back to topic of Biosolids.  Dinglelingy (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prions - 2021

message: Grade A and Grade B biosolids should be described in the article. Badagnani (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grade A and Grade B 

message: The lead content of biosolids should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead content 

message: above 'issues' need some reference (as well as signatures) - it appears to me this article really needs some globalization, it's more than a US topic/issue Red58bill (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed some obvious POV from the History section, which appears to have come verbatim from: this page  There appears to be much unreferenced material in the following sections on the US situation that was directly cribbed from other internet sources as well, and when I find sources, I'll cut that too .... suggest someone who has actual references improve the article before it gets reduced to a couple paragraphs .... or it may be preferable to merge to a section of some other waste topic Red58bill (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Improved US section, removing POV material and citeing facts ... would be good if someone could do the same for the EU section ...  Biosolids are not doom and gloom, nor anyones salvation, but a "work in progress" toward a much more sustainable way to deal with one area of the waste stream  Red58bill (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize

message: We should add a section on what can be done to keep the biosolids at a higher quality, such as: regulating industrial discharges better (ideally keeping them out of the sewer system), user education (ensuring they don't dump nasty stuff into their toilets), industry standards (can personal care products contain fewer harmful substances). One to two sentences could also be added to say that in terms of quantity of biosolids, this could theoretically be reduced if more people switched from flush toilets to dry toilets (although this would not significantly change the quality of the biosolids, except if people use their flush toilets as a dumping mechanism for unwanted other waste, such as drugs, paints, solvents etc.). This is all no-brainer stuff, although we'd need to think carefully which references to cite. The UDDT technology review by GIZ could be one. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add new section on getting biosolids at a higher quality and lower quantity? 

message: Review of the above discussions reveals divergence of opinions regarding use of sewage solids for amendment of agricultural soils. As demonstrated by recent elections, a significant fraction of the English-speaking population is hesitant to recognize a problem until the streets are littered with people having crosses for eyes. An even larger fraction continue to use flush toilets while enjoying better living through chemistry in the belief someone else should deal with the consequences. Perhaps the jargon tag should be removed unless the focus of concern is explained in recognition of Einstein's wisdom: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Thewellman (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would help if the person who added the jargon tag could give us some pointers which paragraphs in particular are hard to understand. Having said that, I had a quick glance myself and identified that content about the prions as complete jargon, not encyclopedic and totally unreferenced. The same user had inserted the same stuff elsewhere, too, (where it has already been deleted) so I deleted that here, too. If I had time, I could probably find other pieces of text that can be simplified as well. But the whole biosolids discussion is so emotionally loaded that I have tended to stay away from this article.... But please User:Kintetsubuffalo help us to get motivated by pointing out which sections in particular you find to contain too much jargon? You're probably right, it just helps to get pointers on where to start. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Use of alternative terms like solids or wastewater solids may be preferable for non-conforming biosolids" is one such Gordian knot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I've made quite a few changes to reduce the jargon. Could you take another look please and point out any problematic sentences? Note this article is a bit "iffy" and quickly gets "political". It needs to be read in conjunction with the article sewage sludge which used to be super-political (and biased) but I have tried to make that one objective as well, and not just focused on the U.S..EMsmile (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jargon? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biosolids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423124151/http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php to http://www.biosolids.com.au/what-are-biosolids.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This badly written polemic text is from Cattle feeding, as none of the references are about cattle specifically, removing to here, although doubtfully useful.  Leo Breman (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text from elsewhere 

message: I am just adding some information and citations about how biosolids are managed in NZ.Realitylink (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information from New Zealand 

message: — Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024