Talk:Sewage sludge

message: Biosolids is term used to fool the public and farmers. The wastewater industry does not want anyone searching for the early history of sludge studies which show there is no current process to kill pathogens. Composting dissicates bacteria until mositure is again present to revive them. Salmonella and E. coli are known to survive on pasture land for over 70 weeks. While chemical may not have a harmful effect on animals, they may have a harmful effect on the first and second generations. The scientific studies did not consider infection of animals to be a problem.  
Spreading Sewage Sludge on U.S. Fields, Hidden Cause of Food Safety Problems
http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/08/21/spreading-sewage-sludge-on-us-fields-hidden-cause-of-food-safety-problems/ Jim Bynum (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Copied from biosolids talk) 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: it is still there!--Stone (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute tag 

message: Why is a sludge hammer called so? --1sneakers6 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean sledge hammer or are you asking about this waste treatment product?  --Clay Collier (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: haha! Yup, I just got the words mixed up.  Thanks! --1sneakers6 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SludgeHammer

message: The lead sentence of biosolids says it's another word for sludge. Can we merge? ike9898 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: "The EPA promoted this policy by presenting it as recycling and rechristening sewage sludge as "biosolids", as they are solids produced by biological activities."  Somebody had an opinion...--24.251.69.25 (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable line 

message: Now what should be do about the other disputed aspects on this page? Do you Velella have the energy to go through it and somehow resolve the issues? I am a bit lost on what to do about it. It's clear that previous editors had quite a US-centric view here; the page would probably benefit from adding also perspectives from Europe where there is maybe less controversy about reuse of sewage sludge (in fact, only some states of Germany (e.g. Bavaria) still allow agricultural reuse, in the other states it is usually incinerated). EvM-Susana (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a lost cause I don't believe. It is certainly painfully US centric but this may reflect the fragmented regulatory framework in the US more than anything else, coupled with a high availability of information on controversies on the web. It may, as you suggest, be prudent at some stage to separate out the use in agriculture in the USA into a daughter article to avoid undue weight here. I currently have very little time at present. After the end of this month I will probably be largely absent from Wikipedia until next March . I would go ahead with the name change in early November and work on improvements bit by bit. It will need a request to admins to move it to a new name as there is an existing re-direct as the desired name. The place to request the move is here. Best of luck.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do about the disputed issues on this page? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sludge →  – In my opinion this page should be renamed to "Sewage sludge" as that's what it deals with (in the beginning other types of sludges are briefly mentioned but the whole article is on sewage sludge). There is a redirect from sewage sludge to sludge already, but I think it is better if this page was called "sewage sludge".  EvM-Susana (talk)  10:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That may well be true, but all of the content of this article is about sewage sludge.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sludge it not equal to sludge! For example, all the information for sludge from drinking water production would fill an article on its own. It would get way too long to have one Wikipedia article about any type of sludge; e.g. we will also have a separate page on "faecal sludge" soon (currently it is together with "septage"). Alternative would be to copy everything we have here on sewage sludge into the existing article on sewage sludge (which already exists and currently has a redirect to "sludge").  EvM-Susana (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
=== Talk page ===
Can we remove the redirect of Talk:Sludge?
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

text: yes, good point. I have removed the redirect now. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Can we remove the redirect of Talk:Sludge?
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, good point. I have removed the redirect now. EvM-Susana (talk) 07:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page 

message: OK, have done some work on this page. Removed stuff that was from the old "sludge" page, now the focus is on "sewage sludge". Also tried to group together all the stuff that refers to controversies in the US. Tried to start out with some neutral information. Tried to make it clear with the headings where it is US-centric. Hoping that other people from Europe may add more information about the situation in Europe where we don't have these heated debates. Needs much more work, but right now I will focus on other articles first. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have done more work on this page. I think it is slowly obtaining a logical structure and becoming encyclopedic in nature. More work remains, e.g. checking out and culling some of the superfluous references and removing some of the very specific US examples. More information from outside of the US needs to be added. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at restructuring 

message: "Regulations that limit contact with biosolids do not prevent environmental processes in the conceptual model such as aerosolization or erosion and the death or multiplication of pathogens"
This quote is taken from worldlibrary.org which is a blacklisted site. I could not find the original use of this quote on any other sources so I have removed the quote from the article(Jackie Kerth (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Source 

message: This article is really good at explaining what sewage sludge is and the terms related to it. It's also good at remaining objective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by OnceUponAdrine (talk • contribs) 04:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Praises