Biosolids to the Rescue!

By ChristinaC: on | 7 Left a Message


I’ll admit that I have thought about what happens to our waste. We go about our business, flush the toilet, then where does our fecal matter go?! Does it just sit in pipes and sewage systems? But look at how many people there are in this world…if everyone goes just once a day, that’s quite a build-up! Actually, wastewater is treated to create biosolids.

Biosolids are nutrient –rich organic materials that result from the treatment of human waste from sewages. Biosolids can be applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. They are used in the forestry industry to promote the growth of trees and used by farmers and gardeners to quicken the growth of agricultural crops, fertilize gardens, and reclaim mining sites. Biosolids can be highly valuable resources, because they are made of natural components suitable for replacing chemical fertilizers. They can be composted and are even sold and distributed to be spread over lawns in some places.

Biosolids are created in the process of treating wastewater and are the residuals when the water is purified to make the water safe to drink, for recreational purposes, and to improve marine water quality for recreation and seafood harvesting. When wastewater reaches the sewage treatment plant, industrial facilities pre-treat the wastewater to remove hazardous contaminants before it is sent to treatment. The sewage goes through physical, chemical and biological processes to separate water from the waste. The solids are treated to the right pH level and odours are eliminated. The process also sanitizes the wastewater to kill disease-causing bacteria, viruses and parasites.

The topic suggests that biosolids are only used as sustainable agricultural fertilizer in other parts of the world, but this practice is actually used in Canada, as well as the United States. Municipalities are required to treat wastewater in Canada. Their options include recycling the biosolids as fertilizer, to incinerate it, or to bury it in a landfill.

In the Ottawa-Carleton region, biosolids are disinfected at the Pickard Centre, where the initial part of the process is to separate water from sludge. The water is brought back to the Ottawa River, while the sludge goes through a process to eliminate moisture and bacteria. A polymer solution is added to the sludge to create biosolids. They are regularly checked for contamination, as there are strict rules on the use of biosolids from the Ministry of Environment. Biosolids are not allowed to be used for home gardening and plants due to regulations. They contain high contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and metals that are good for growing crops. Biosolids are used as fertilizers for hay, corn, pasture, commercial sod, cereal, ornamental crops, and trees. In Quebec City, biosolids are dried into pellets to power the municipal incinerator. Other cities in the country, including Toronto, turn sludge into synthetic crude oil and coal. Burning biosolids create ash that can be used to make concrete and planting soil. Farming communities in Ontario actually ask for biosolids to be used on their land and are pleased with the results.


(Pickard Centre, Ottawa)

In other countries such as Ghana and China, farms and agriculture are irrigated with urine and wastewater. Human waste is used as fertilizer in Zimbabwe due to shortages of nitrate. Some countries collect the waste and seal it up so that it goes through anaerobic digestion that creates biogas as a side product. Biogas can be used to fuel cooking stoves and heating systems, as well as cars. China aimed to have millions of households operating biogas systems. In Uganda, farmers are taught how to make biogas with their feces and organic waste. In Sweden, they went all out and created biogas from rotting animal carcasses and run trains on it.

Some environmentalists have expressed concerns, such as biosolids putting toxins in the soil. Others say that sewage treatment should be researched further before applying it to our lands. However, many health experts support the land application of biosolids. If you really think about it, it kind of makes sense. We use horse and cow manure to plant things, so is human waste that different? The Water Environment Assosication of Ontario compiled a report in 2001 that stated the use of biosolids are safe in Ontario. Citizens have been worried with how biosolids would smell, but it depends on how they have been treated. Some smells are due to their composition of sulphur and ammonia, important nutrients for plants.

The use of human waste as fertilizers has been around for centuries. They have proven to be quite safe, but it sounds kind of gross, right? It sounds like we have a case of “fecophobia”, a term created by Joseph Jenkins to describe the fear of human excrement. In this man’s book, he points out that it’s insane not to realize the fact that: "you take your dump into a large bowl of drinking water, then flush it. Why do we believe this to be the civilized thing to do? What a waste. Where does the flushed material go? What would happen if everyone in the world crapped in their drinking water supplies? Why doesn't any other land mammal defecate deliberately in water? Why do we?”

These are good questions and I suggest you think of an answer, too. With the way society is, I don’t think it is civilized either to do your business all over the place or wherever you please, but why are we doing it in clean water? Or could we go about our business in the forests just like the wild animals do? I don’t know what the answer is, but this is quite the interesting topic. As for the use of biosolids, I think the pros outweigh the cons and I don’t have a problem with the way it is used now. Are there really even cons? No doubt about it, I don't know if I could handle the smell. But that's just a small price to pay if we can cut back on all the chemical fertilizers and with biogas, we could cut back on a lot of electricity, too. With everyone become more environmentally friendly and aware, I think that the widespread use of biosolids can really help the earth. And we all excrete waste, so no one can say they didn't do their part for the environment. Who knew an answer to going green would be right in our toilet bowls?


Works Cited

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. (2003-2010). FAQ- Biosolids. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from CWWA: http://www.cwwa.ca/faqbiosolids_e.asp

Mills, D. (2001, February). Is Human Waste Safe as Fertilizer? Retrieved April 5, 2010, from Peace and Environment News: http://www.perc.ca/PEN/2001-02/s-mills2.html

Nierenberg, D. (2007, October 11). Real organic agriculture: Using human waste as fertilizer. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from Worldwatch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5394

van der Zee, B. (2008, January 17). Crazy idea, but it just might work. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/17/waste.renewableenergy

Photo Sources:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/wp-content/upload/2009/10/biosolids.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/waterwaste/rop_centre_en-1.jpg

Technology and Beyond

By ChristinaC: on | 5 Left a Message

I originally thought it was an interesting topic to discuss the importance of technology to learn more about the different systems of the body. Don’t we need to know about the body in order to create a solution? Well, I was only part right. After researching, it began to make a lot more sense. Inventors/scientists need to have knowledge to base their technology on, but when they make prototypes, things don’t always go as planned. They will encounter problems along the way, and thus, need to keep re-modifying their plans. In situations like these, more things are learned about the body and its limits are tested.

Technology is crucial to our understanding of the different systems of the body. Ultimately, all body systems are intertwined and interdependent to form the complex system that is the human body. Our digestive organs would not work if the circulatory system did not do its job to supply blood and oxygenate the cells, so that their functions can be carried out. Trying to implant an artificial lung, some consideration needs to be done about how the rest of the body will accept it. In learning how to suit other parts and components of the body, we gain more knowledge. Let’s examine this idea with the case of the artificial heart, from various cases of artificial heart use throughout the years.

In March of 1983, it was reported in the L.A. Times that the first recipient of an artificial heart died 112 days after the implantation. The article is in the archives which means you’d have to pay to read the entire article, but from what I could read, he had gone through a series of setbacks from a permanently implanted heart. The artificial heart still needed to be refined and continued to do so, up until today and beyond.

In August of 1985, a man in Arizona was given a Jarvik-7 (shown on the left) artificial heart, the first authorized artificial heart used temporarily for those waiting for a heart donor. In October of the same year, a man was given an improved artificial heart compared to the Jarvik-7. This advanced heart was designed to reduce blood clotting, but despite this, the man went into critical condition the next day, going into stupor as the blood vessels leading to the brain were constricting. He lasted long enough to receive a donor heart, but died 18 days later, after suffering an inflamed pancreas and fevers.

In 2006, hearts were meant to help patients live long enough to get a heart donor. A fully implantable heart was created, except there was a problem—it didn’t have a pulse. Previous models of hearts used pumps to create a pulse that pumped blood throughout the body. The idea of whether having a pulse or not would affect the human or animal were debated. Some said that not having a pulse would mean the small capillaries would not get blood, resulting in organ failure. Others said that continuous flow devices are equally as safe as pumps that pulse. I have not found an updated article on this topic, or whether their research proved it fit to use in humans.

Now moving forward to September 2009, not too long ago, Abiomed created a self-contained heart that runs on battery. The procedure will cost $250, 000, which is double the price of a heart transplant in the United States of America.


The journey to find the perfect heart involves lots of research, and in research we make discoveries. Take the case of diabetes, where not much was known about the disease, and was often referred to as the “sugar sickness”. Researchers Banting, Best, and their research team discovered insulin. Insulin explained the disease and the cure. It was discovered through testing of blood sugar and extractions from the pancreas that began to work miracles on diabetics, who would have otherwise died. Although not part of the digestive, circulatory or respiratory system, bionic eyes are also being developed to help the blind.

An article in 2003, stated that putting in electronics into the eye, a corrosive environment, could be a problem. Devices that are not biocompatible could cause major tissue reactions. But with technology advancements and research, some predict that the eyes could be fully ready by 2011. In a recent article, a toddler’s parents are fighting for an artificial cornea to save their daughters life, who could be blind before the age of 3. Technology really does improve our knowledge of how the human body works and all its internal components. But like all good things, technological “cures” should only be used on patients who need it, instead of people who want to be perfect or superhuman.

But aside from the main topic, all this talk about the future of technology, with bionic eyes, artificial hearts, bionic limbs…artificial everything really got me thinking. Some fictitious stories talk about the future—of a battle between the human race and robots. Something that I’ve never thought of was Who’s side am I going to be on? With the advancements in technologies, we just might be those robots (well probably not us, but further down the family tree). That scares me, despite that it would so cool to be a real Transformer! All these idioms we use in today’s society would take on a whole new meaning. Your heart is artificial, so what could you possibly feel there? You would not be looking into the eyes of the one you love, but into a silicon chip. Would we really be human? From all these articles about the heart, I’ve realized that the best is natural, and nothing can really beat the human heart, SO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND BE SURE TO EAT YOUR VEGETABLES!

Works Cited
(The work cited list is very broken, because blogger made me delete a lot of it so it could post...)
Altman, L. (1985, August 30). ARIZONA MAN GETS ARTIFICIAL HEART. Retrieved
March 8, 2010, from the New York Times:

Chicago Tribune wires. (1985, November 15). 1ST TO GET PENN STATE HEART DIES.
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from The Chicago Tribune:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/25074334.html? dids=25074334:25074334&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+15%2C+1985&author=Chicago+Tribune+wires&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=1ST+TO+GET+PENN+STATE+HEART+DIES&pqatl=go>>
Chicago Tribune wires. (1985, October 23). HEART PATIENT GOES INTO STUPOR; CRITICAL.
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Chicago Tribune: >>
DYING MAN RECEIVES NEW TYPE OF ARTIFICIAL HEART. (1985, October 15).
Retrieved March 8, 2010, from The New York Times: >>
Nelson, H. (1983, March 24). First Recipient of Artificial Heart Dies. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from
Los Angeles Times:
Roberts, B. (2010, February 16). Tot's bionic bid to beat blindness. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from
Mirror.co.uk News:
Sandhana, L. (2003, July 16). Bionic Eyes Benefit the Blind. Retrieved Feburary 17, 2010, from
Singer, E. (2006, September 21). An Artificial Heart That Doesn't Beat. Retrieved Feburary 16,
2010, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology: >>
Weisman, R. (2009, June 29). Artificial heart's use marks milestone. Retrieved Feburary 17, 2010,
>

Artificial Reality

By ChristinaC: on | 6 Left a Message
This whole blogging thing is starting to get really intense. I've delayed in writing this blog long enough, so where should I start? I really didn't know where to go when I read the topic...I mean, last topic, I argued that humans should not be able to modify the genes of their children. But our whole lives, the food we eat and even some of our dogs or animal friends have been genetically enhanced or mutated. Really, is there any justification in this and under what rights do we have?

When I ask myself these questions, I think of the blog topics we have all previously wrote about. Think back to when we were talking about whether or not we were good stewards of the world. When I wrote that blog, I thought about global warming and climate change. That's large scale stuff. But what about the things we eat everyday and all the groceries in the supermarket. Is anything real these days? Think about it...we don't live in God's natural, beautiful world anymore...it's just all fake, nothing like what He intended it to be.

But honestly, I could see how we got here, just like how I'm sure the people of the appropriate generation could see how designer babies and whatever other monstrosities we cause, were created. Everything (most things, anyways) always starts out seeking good, but we always end up taking it too far. I can see how people started making their crops disease resistant by modifying it genetically, because back then, this was their livelihood and their families needed to be fed. A bad harvest was devastating. This is just how modifying human genes started, when people started to find a cure for sex-linked diseases. Genetically modifying dogs? People wanted dogs to perform certain tasks and to do certain things. Yes, kind of selfish, but not as bad as having people today purposely make "dog show worthy" dogs. I don't blame people who own mixed bred dogs, because I have one myself (see below-his name is Boomer!), so I hope this isn't a biased opinion. But I think people who own dogs in general are dog-lovers and it wouldn't matter if they were purebred or mixed. Mixed dogs aren't bad, because different types just...might have had a connection - it's wrong when humans step in to encourage it. Mixed bred dogs are just the norm of today's society, as are all kinds of genetically modified crops and animals.


The wide variety of foods we have come to love and know have most probably been genetically modified somewhere down the line. When we really think about it, a part of us thinks it's wrong, but the other part of us thinks "How could it be wrong? I've lived like this my whole life, so it's impossible that there's a problem." A lot us think like this, because we don't want to open the door to the possibility of opening the door to changing the way we live our life, because life is good. Like they say, ignorance is bliss. To be honest, I don't know what we can do. But I think just knowing will do us good in the future. Maybe realizing the mistake we made can prevent the human race from making another mistake, such as allowing parents to select the genes of their children. We need to think beyond ourselves.

We always think things of the world in relation to us, as if we're in the center of it. But lwe're not, so let's take a look at something other than ourselves, like animals . Animals can be mutated by artificially selecting traits, which is very inhumane. Take the example of a chicken selected to be without feathers. Their nakedness makes them more vulnerable to sunburn, parasites, and mosquitoes. Male chickens are unable to flap their wings, making them unable to mate. Seriously, if they ain’t broke, don’t fix ‘em.
Let's go back and take a look in the mirror. You know, since we do think we're at the center of the universe, it would help if we used this mentality to see just how much our lives depend on the livelihood of others. We truly are all in this together. To answer the question from the first blog, no, we are not good stewards of the earth, because we cater to ourselves first and this is not an attribute of a good steward. In my designer babies blog, I said that humans would always try to find something fix. Maybe we need to fix ourselves, and I don't mean by altering our genes. We need to change our mindset to the fact that things always have a way of working themselves out, WITHOUT our help. And for this blog, I would like to conclude that artificial selection is wrong with the wrong intentions. So where will you stand?

Works Cited

Answers Corporation. (2009). artificial selection. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial-selection

Education, B. (2009). Artificial Selection. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml

Wikianswers-What are the advantages and disadvantages of artificial selection? (2009). Retrieved December 2009, 14, from Wikianswers: <>


Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)