The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

‘Disaster iting » l to happen‘ | ; t Sludge opponents Té ej‘ect _ assurances by officials that biosolids‘ use j on farmland is safe ‘ rRNEIV® SiroR ‘ Sices 1a4k6 * f sOILED FARMERS VS. RESIDENTS § SECOND INAFOURâ€"PART SERIES 4 f CAROLA VYHNAK . URBAN AFFAIRS REPORTER + § _ \Biosolids are rife with contamiâ€" q nants potentially harmful to huâ€" N mans, livestock, wildlife, crops, soil and groundwater. Poorly tested or || 7 regulated, biosolids may contain + 4 thousands oftoxic chemicals the efâ€" # F f fects of which we know little about. f Guidelines for spreading biosolids - on farmland are outdated and imadâ€" equate. So say biosolid opponents. i The Ontario government‘s posiâ€" tion is that biosolids, or sludge, is ; safe if used as directed and benefiâ€" cial to agriculture as a fertilizer. Guidelines for its use are both up to | â€" dateand adgg}lg}te._ $ K | > ‘ _\ "When the conditions that we‘ve | _ set out ... are followed, yes it‘s | safe," says Eileen Smith, a spokesâ€"~| 7 person for the ministry of the enviâ€" | ronment, Sludge is the solid waste left over at the end of the sewage ‘ treatment process, when.clean waâ€" P f ter is removed from the foul soup of l human, commercial, hospital and \ industrial waste that comes down I s h 1 the pipe. | | Eachyear close to halfofOntario‘s ; & â€" nutrientâ€"rich sludge â€"120,000 dry “: e SLUDGE continued on A8 ! j «uB ihake. :\ Ralfead | } E ) 4