Biosolids: Legitimate fertilizers, or just poop?

We all know Bessie here is one of many cows whose waste we use as fertilizers, so here's a question for you: Why not use our own?


First of all, I think we need to understand the significant difference between biosolids and human waste. Biosolids may have started off as sewage sludge, but they're filtered for suitability and then go through numerous treatments to remove harmful bacteria and diseases.

Biosolids ≠ What goes down our toilets!

Let's be honest, the main reason people are wary of biosolids is because they believe it's the same thing as sewage sludge. This leads to concerns about healthy safety, pathogens, odour, and water safety. I think once they hear out the facts, they'll see that the pros outweigh the cons.



To address the most important concern, being health, the concentration and effects of biosolids vary with the place that is applied. Technology has come a long way, so you can be sure that these treatments are effective. That being said, each location has its own regulations, so there are safety precautions taking place. As for human contact, there is certainly restricted access so the everyday person won't be wandering in. Again, biosolids are not wastes coming straight from the sewers to the fields. To keep biosolids even safer, only human wastes should go down the toilet, not tissues or other products.




So now that we've got that sorted out, here are some reasons why biosolids may be more beneficial:


Biosolids are natural -- we made them! Natural and organic products are getting more mainstream because of their health benefits. Why not with fertilizers as well? Biosolids already contain a large amount of nutrients that the plants will need, so farmers don't need to keep adding unnatural chemical fertilizers instead. Biosolids also release their many nutrients much more slowly than chemical fertilizers do. This means large fields won't get "burned" as a result of too many nutrients at one time.






Other than their practical use, biosolids promote recycling. In Toronto, 64% of biosolids are either dumped in a landfill or incinerated. Biosolids protect the earth. Unlike chemical fertilizers, they bind to the soil, making it heavier and more resistant to erosion. Biosolids create jobs. Instead of just bringing them to a landfill, more people are needed to supervise their treatment, their transportation, and application.


They're already in use all over the world, so why not?

If society would disassociate biosolids from what goes down the toilet, I'm sure more farmers would be willing to use them without fear of losing business. Biosolids are environmentally-friendly, healthy, and safer for plants than chemical fertilizers are. Let's not waste our waste!


Sources:

All images linked to source.

City of Toronto: Toronto Water - Protecting water quality - Biosolids Management

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association - FAQ Biosolids

Virginia Tech - Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids in Virginia: Risks and Concerns

Lynchburg College, Virginia - BIOSOLIDS: Fertilizer or Pollution?

Auburn University, Alabama - Using Sewage Sludge as a Fertilizer


Blogs I've commented on:

Inggrid Wibowo - Where does the poo go?

Connie Tang - A solid (pun intended) idea.

I'll have one baby, thanks. Hmm.. Black hair, green eyes... Not too many freckles, please.

What is a designer baby? The Oxford English dictionary defines it as:

"a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics"

The media portrays the idea as parents picking and choosing physical features such as gender, eye/hair colour, intelligence, height, etc. Right away, most people would shake their heads at the idea and call it shallow. In this sense, I agree. For cosmetic purposes, creating designer babies is wrong because it makes a conditional love before the child is even born. Being the parents, they should accept and care for their child regardless. This side of the argument is simple enough, so next is the medical aspect.

Chris Kirby was born with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic heart disease that can induce cardiac arrest at any age. He and his wife wanted more children, but were worried about putting them at risk for this condition. To solve their problem, they turned to In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). This means that a cell is removed from the embryos to check for the disease. Only the cells without the gene are implanted in the mother's uterus. This gave Chris Kirby and Tanya Fawkes-Kirby two healthy twin daughters who don't have the defect, and therefore cannot pass it on to their future children.

With their happy ending in mind, can someone really say that what they did was wrong? Many doctors don't consider this type of screening to be creating designer babies, but see it as a preemptive measure instead. However, this still makes controversy around the concept that "some embyros aren't good enough" and that every fertilized egg is a potential life. What do you think?

Those are the two main ideas that come to mind when thinking about designer babies. But have you thought about parents who want their children to have deformities? Online magazine Slate calls it "Designer Babies: The deliberate crippling of children". These genetic defects include deafness, blindness, dwarfism, etc. Parents say this is because they want children who are the same as them. In these scenarios, I think pre-implantation screening is wrong. This goes directly hand-in-hand with the superficial aspect., though I think my mind could sway to understand their perspective. The parents should love the child exactly the same as they would if he/she had the same characteristic as themselves.

In conclusion, I believe that screening of embryos for health purposes is fine. It can save a child's life. If people say that it's still creating a designer baby, I argue that the child is still theirs. The traits are still inherited from the parents, the harmful ones are just prevented. It creates so much controversy that I doubt choosing superficial traits will become an actual trend.

Here's a picture of a totally adorable baby who seems to be reading a book. Awww. I just hope those glasses have no prescription.

Sources:
CTV BC - Screening could create 'designer babies'
Readers Digest - Designer Babies
USA Today - Some ponder 'designer' babies with Mom or Dad's defective genes
Slate Magazine - The deliberate crippling of children
All images hyperlinked to source.


Blogs I've commented on:
Connie Tang - Designer babies!!!
Melissa Quinn - Designer Babies; Are we taking Science too far?

Why, those slimy, blood-sucking... Sea lampreys!

Ladies and gentlemen... The sea lamprey.

The sea lamprey (or Petromyzon marinus) is a parasitic eel-like fish that sucks on other fishes' blood and body fluids to survive. On average, it's said that a staggering 6 of 7 fish won't survive a sea lamprey attack. With these creatures in our Great Lakes, our native fish and biodiversity wouldn't stand a chance.

Sea lampreys are an invasive species from the Atlantic Ocean. People first started spotting them in the Great Lakes in the 1830's and speculation began that they were accidentally introduced to Lake Ontario via man-made canals. They spread to the other Great Lakes by 1939. At the time, lake trout were the most predatory species, so the sea lampreys would choose them as hosts (image to the right) and as a result, the population greatly decreased. They actually became extinct in Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron (except some inlets of Georgian Bay).

If the extinction of one species wasn't bad enough, take into consideration the change in biodiversity and the food chain. The absence of the predatorial lake trout led to increases in population of other foreign species (ie rainbow smelt, alewife). These large numbers still threatened the native species. Continually, sea lampreys were still present. Soon, our biodiversity would not be very diverse..

Luckily, in the whole lifetime of a sea lamprey, only one year is used for parasitic feeding. When they are physically mature enough, they migrate into streams to spawn. It sounds like there shouldn't be a problem, but a female lamprey will spawn an average between 60 and 70 thousand eggs. Even considering the chances of fertilization, that is a huge number.

Some may say this problem was our fault as human beings (man-made canals), but so is the solution. There are a few different paths being taken.

Lampricides are very selective and have little to no impact on other fish or wildlife. The lampricide is put into the streams to kill off the sea lampreys while they are still in larvae form.

Barriers are built to prevent spawning lampreys from reaching their destination. Don't worry though, they don't obstruct the paths of other fish.

Traps are usually placed near the barriers (it only makes sense, because there will be a larger concentration making them easier to catch). The females are mostly used for research, while the males are brought in for the sterile-male-release-technique.

Sterile-Male-Release-Technique -- males are sterilized, then released back into the water. You should remember that by this age, the lampreys don't go into parasitic feeding frenzies.

Thankfully, these actions are helping, as research tells us that ongoing efforts have lowered the population by 90%. These organizations aren't even killing them off, they're just preventing future spawns. Humans may be the cause for many environmental problems, but we can also be the solution.

**All images are hyperlinked to source**

Sources:
Eastern Michigan University
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Minnesota Sea Grant
USGS Great Lakes Science Center

I commented on...:
Inggrid Wibowo - The David Suzuki Foundation saves the world!
Mary Chiu - Correction over Conservation