Talk:Sludge

Would the accounting use of the term sludge be relevant here?

dispute tag

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)

Biosolids are the end product from the treatment of wastewater using the activated sludge process. That is sludges that meet criteria set under EPA guidelines (CR 503 in the U.S.A) relating to pathogen content and the presence of volatile solids. The activated sludge process(Ardern and Lockett 1914), that creates WAS for secondary treatment was never designed for pathogen elimination - only rapid reduction in the BOD of domestic wastewater. Yet anyone can witness the enourmous expense most wastewater treatment authorities will deliver in the never ending goal to alleviate public concerns regarding pathogen levels in biosolids. There are many types of sludge. There is only one type of biosolid. There are thousands of articles not just by scientists but primarily independent engineers regarding ever improving methodologies for treating secondary sludges that are often trialled and implemented to meet the criteria to be termed 'Biosolids' in a faster and less expensive manner. Consult the journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.144.9.73 (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is a one-sided affair with virtually no sourcing and an absurd, bolded screamer to go to a one-sided website for info. Compare to biosolids. Merge or cleanup? Mdbrownmsw 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I could cite thousands of independent references for lab, pilot, and full scale work that have gone into alleviating the misguided notions of citizens like Jim Bynum. Biosolids ARE NOT waste sludge. How many times do you need to be told. This isn't Wikipedia, it must be Dickheadpedia. Perhaps Jim would like to take a trip back to early 19th century London and then see how many ridiculous conspiracy thoeries he could bring forth from the aether when he is standing knee deep in his own turds. Did someone throw this guy in a grit chamber or something? Dissent is healthy and essential, but alas so is intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.144.9.74 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to all who have managed to completely disregard the work of many scientists and engineers like myself who spend their lives studying and implementing procedures for the conversion of SLUDGE into BIOSOLIDS. As for the 'Alliegence against sludge" - here is a solution - go back to using chamber pots and you can recyle your faecal material in your own yard for your own re-use. Would you like to ban anti-biotics also or the emerging field of phage therapy. Perhaps not until after you have had that Hepatitis infection cleaned up. Although you can try crystal therapy, or homeopathy, raki, or even believing in tooth fairies - what do you think? Do something positive with your life instead of critising those who spend their lives ensuring your health is protected. Take a basic look at a human being - do you think all people are out to deceive and manipulate. I would say the people of the "Alliance" are poor misguided individuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.144.9.74 (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(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)

it is still there!--Stone (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

SludgeHammer

Why is a sludge hammer called so? --1sneakers6 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean sledge hammer or are you asking about this waste treatment product? --Clay Collier (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

haha! Yup, I just got the words mixed up. Thanks! --1sneakers6 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

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

• I think the two should be merged. There should be no question in the minds of readers that biosolids is the greenwashing term for sewage sludge. Karen Feridun, United Sludge-Free Alliance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 260 West (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Both articles refer to the same substance. Katana0182 (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think enough time has passed without any objections to a merge being raised. I'll try to work on this later, but if you are interested and motivated to work on this merge, be my guest. ike9898 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, no no!!! Do not do this. "Biosolids" are a special class of sludge!!! Sludges are present in various forms in the sewage treatment process. The end result may be a sludge that has recently been called "biosolids". However sludges arise in all sorts of other industries, whereas biosolids arise in only one! For a start, "biosolids" are always biological, whereas "sludge" often is not biotic at all!
If you want to have "biosolids" as a separate sub-section (within a section on sewage sludges), then I would support it. Remember, the article title says it is about "sludge" in general.
—DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC))

The biosolid term is commonly accepted to be a term of 'art' used to depict sewage sludge as something less toxic than it is. It is not acceptable to dispose of on agricultural fields, unless the toxics are removed. Even if biosolids are a special class, that's not enough reason to keep it as a separate article, they should be merged, and biosolids redirect to sewage sludge. I agree that there are multiple classes of sludge, so there may be a case for sewage sludge being an article distinct from sludge, with sludge being the disambiguation page including slag (leftovers from steel production), coal sludge (leftovers from coal combustion) Watchpup (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can add the argument that yes biosolids are sludge but it is usually after treatment. i have talked to someone that workes at one of the sewage treatment plants and they refer it as sludge until it is ready to be sold and used on farms. The main different i can think of between biosolids and sludge in a sewage plant is the addition of lime. They add lime to the sludge they remove so that it is basically nutrients. this is then sold as biosolids —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griffj91 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wastewater sludge is an unclassified material. This could be waste activated sludge (WAS), primary sludge, etc. Biosolids material is created when wastewater undergoes a treatment process that changes the characteristics of the material into a new product. One required phase is pathogen reduction (PR). Optionally, vector-attraction reduction (VAR) can also be attained with appropriate treatment. Consider this: if a facility brings in milk and outputs yogurt (or cheese, ice cream, etc), should that yogurt have its own page on Wikipedia, or should yogurt be listed on the milk page because it's just a different form of milk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.131.235 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)