EPA, USDA push farmers to use coal waste on their fields

bad idea

Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).

The one to watch is arsenic. Arsenic in soils is usually about 5 ppm. If the fly ash is being mixed in dilute quantities (

Hey why not Jan? After all that GM food is already poison...

If we use natural gas to generate our electricity and run our vehicles, there is no smoke to go into the air, and no soot or ashes left over to have to figure out what to do with. No soot, no creosote, no ashes, no cinders, no holding ponds, no gypsum, nothing.

None--------Zero--------Zip-----------Nada

If we use natural gas,(methane) to power our vehilces and electric plants, we can get rid of strip mines---methane is a gas, you can't strip mine a gas.

If we make methane from sewage and animal manure, what is left over is compost. Gardeners tell me that compost is very good for gardens. We have a whole lot of sewage and manure.

We need to be using natural gas, methane, instead of coal and oil. We can do anything with natural gas that can be done with coal or oil---only cleaner and no environmental damage.

from the intro-------------"......but when it comes to truly sustainable and healthy ways to cover crops and protect our soil, not a peep. "---------------

Peep. Compost is a sustainable and healthy way to protect the soil. A lot better than strip mines.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0323e/t0323e05.htm
Effect of gypsum on plants

"Gypsiferous soils are very variable and there are many factors that affect their properties in relation to plant growth. Gypsiferous soils can be productive and managed profitably if they are first studied properly. The effect of the chemical properties of gypsiferous and calcareous soils on the growth of plants, both natural vegetation and crops, and their mineral contents have been investigated by numerous authors.

Before further discussing the effects of gypsum on plants it is worth noting that measurements of total gypsum in soils are unreliable and do not reflect the actual amount present as proved by Sayegh et al. (1978). Figures quoted in the literature for the gypsum content of soils are commonly lower than the actual amount present.

Van Alphen and de los Rios Romero (1971) conclude that up to 2 percent gypsum in the soil favours plant growth, between 2 and 25 percent has little or no adverse effect if in powdery form, but more than 25 percent can cause substantial reduction in yields.

They suggest that reductions are due in part to imbalanced ion ratios, particularly K:Ca and Mg:Ca ratios. Hernando et al. (1963, 1965) studied the effect of gypsum on the growth of corn and wheat by varying the gypsum level in the soil up to 75 percent. They show that high levels of gypsum caused poor growth of corn, especially as the soil moisture was maintained at 80 percent of field capacity. However, wheat showed minimum growth where the soil contained 25 percent gypsum at all soil moisture levels ranging from 15 to 100 percent of field capacity. Akhvlediani (1962) concludes in general, that agricultural production on gypsiferous chernozem and chestnut soils is not affected when the gypsum content is between 15 and 30 percent. Bureau and Roederer (1960), report that 30 percent gypsum content in soils of Tunisia is toxic to plant growth. Van Alphen and de los Rios Romero (1971) state, from field observations in the Ebro Valley of Spain, that plant growth is reduced where the gypsum content exceeds 20 to 25 percent."

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05612.html

Also, according to this voluminous report the amount of mercury captured at a coal plant depends on the type of coal burned which I would think effects the "scrubbing" process in regards to what is left behind. In my view it is then dangerous to use coal waste which DOES consist of coal ash as any type of agricultural cover as its relationship to soil is unknown over time, especially regarding yields. Cover crops and the use of other natural covers to sequester soil carbon (humanure is even better in my view) are much safer and healthier. Also, FGD gypsum is not 100% safe. If farmers wished to use gypsum on their soil they could already get it naturally. But of course, as with GMOs this government will tell us it is safe and not tell the consumer much of anything else. Again, this appears to be just another attempt to circumvent regulation and make a proft from it. And it also appears that the GMO lobbyist here is also a lobbyist for the coal industry as well who thinks everything is a 'conspiracy theory.' Please leave my tags alone from this point on. You want your comments respected then do the same.

Nope. That is not how it scrubs. You seem to be assumig that becasue it is called a scrubber that it somehow uses detergent or mixing or brushes or something.

This is not a washing process, it is a reaction process. That is the reason there are so few contaminants. If there are additional chemicals other than the calcium and the sulfur they do not react because they are not part o the reaction. This is not that different from how they do final purification of copper. While the final process is an electroplate process it is the same in that it simply leaves the impurities that are not part of the reaction behind.

The little spray heads in the picture mist the dissolved lime through the sulfur laden air. The reaction [turns] the gas and the liquid into a solid, (gypsum) which is filtered out. If there was anything else in solution, it stays in solution, and anything in suspension can be filtered out earlier. you might though dumb luck catch a tiny amount of other things within the forming solid, but the amount is going to be ridiculously small. The only reason they don't actually produce full on lab grade chemically pure gypsum is because there is no need to. They easily could. It wouldn't take a lot of extra effort.

Ok, that makes sense. But that doesn't at all defend the position above which indicates that scrubber gypsum is somehow better than regular agricultural lime. If limestone slurry is used as a reactant, it can't be better than agricultural lime. If anything it has to have more contaminants of some sort, which is how it scrubs. That said, it may be no worse than ag lime, depending on what contaminants it's cleaning out, but it can't be 'cleaner' as was indicated above.

Might be ok.....

Electrostatic precipitators and baghouses collect particles of fly ash and do only that, collect them.

Scubbers are used to remove sulfer from the flue gas by way of chemical reaction and reduce sulfuric acid rain. They spray the flue gas with a solution of something (limestone slurry?) that reacts with the sulfer fumes and a solid precipitate is chemically created which can then be easily (sort of) disposed of or refined into gypsum.

Perhaps I'm misinformed about how coal plants work, but the below explanation from wikipedia surely sounds like a scrubber to me. Can you explain what sort of scrubber might remove the below contaminants?

"Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. Since the particles solidify while suspended in the exhaust gases, fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm. They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3). Fly ashes are generally highly heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of glassy particles with various identifiable crystalline phases such as quartz, mullite, and various iron oxides.

Fly ash also contains environmental toxins in significant amounts, including arsenic (43.4 ppm); barium (806 ppm); beryllium (5 ppm); boron (311 ppm); cadmium (3.4 ppm); chromium (136 ppm); chromium VI (90 ppm); cobalt (35.9 ppm); copper (112 ppm); fluorine (29 ppm); lead (56 ppm); manganese (250 ppm); nickel (77.6 ppm); selenium (7.7 ppm); strontium (775 ppm); thallium (9 ppm); vanadium (252 ppm); and zinc (178 ppm).[5]"

AFAIK this is a bad article. I'm surprised the AP picked it up.

Scrubber gypsum is famous for being almost the purest form of gypsum known. Much purer than most natural sources. It's the standard ingredient in wall board. There's a very high likely hood that you are surrounded with it at this moment. Some of you may remember these stories from Current:

http://current.com/items/91586834_toxic-drywall.htm
http://current.com/items/89967694_toxic-chinese-products-continue-to-sicken-amer...

These are instances where bad gypsum was used and made people sick. Why did it turn out to b poisonous? Because it was natural gypsum not synthetic, which is what we use in the United States.

Any other source of gypsum found will likely have more contaminants not less. What is surprising to me is not that people are trying to stop it because it is poisonous, but that it is being sold cheaply enough to actually put on fields. As an almost chemically pure substance it has many industrial uses. Normally the entire supply is used by the wall board industry. perhaps it isw the drop in home construction that is causing this push

One indication of poor journalism here is the comparison of gypsum to coal fly ash.
"The Obama administration has continued promoting FGD gypsum's use in farming even as it drafts a coal waste rule in response to a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, Tenn., one year ago Tuesday. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish in nearby rivers. The cleanup is expected to cost about $1 billion."

Coal fly ash is a totally different product (and really is quite nasty) but comparing the two is like saying that milk is bad for you because cows also make cow manure and you shouldn't eat that. IT'S IDIOCY.

To the commentator who claims the pollutant levels are so low as to be insignificant- Please think about what you're saying.

Lead, mercury, arsenic and other elemental pollutants WILL build up in the soil with repeat application of coal ash. Increasing levels of toxic chemicals in soil CANNOT be a good thing.

Another brilliant idea from the USDA.

Coal ash is supposed to be good for crops!!!! WTF!!! Granted, ash from your fireplace is probably real good for your garden, but coal ash!!!???
That's it. If it isn't bad enough we have to deal with pesticides and iradiation and other crap sprayed, sprinkled and injected into our food, now they want to further poison us by using coal ash to fertilize our crops!
Personal veggie garden/green house...here I come. I am no longer playing this game.

In fact, this plants products, along with others, was named in a law suit for contaminated gypsum board and in the research of the subject it was found that the products that were contaminated were in fact manufactured in other countries and that this companies product was not liable because it met with our (USA) standards and did not contain any of the contaminants listed in the suit.

They also started using High fructose corn syrup because is was cheaper. This has many small amounts of deadly chemicals in it cooked down so that we "don't react to it". Then we consume this in everything we eat and we get sick. It started off Just like the coal thing. They say "oh it's such a small amount, that it won't harm anything". Look what happened. And aspartame causing lupus. There's so many.

Mercury, Arsenic and lead are naturally found in soil anyway and the amounts present in coal ash seem to present no real danger. Coal ash actually (as this article and topic area has been posted before) has significant benefits for soil. Knowing that it is good for soil, wouldn't you rather have it fertilize fields while being monitored rather than put into a landfill and forgotten?

Just when you think you've heard it all, what a terrible idea.

It seems obvious the EPA now stands for the Energy Protection Agency, since the environment is at the bottom of their list.

KEEP COAL ASH OFF MY FOOD. There are enough poisons on it already and I will not support this behind the back scheme to get the coal industry off the hook for it's NEGLIGENCE regarding coal ash spills and for them to make a profit from it! Don't even dare to now tell me the coal industry would have the audacity to claim this is "sustainable agriculture."

We already have mercury in high fructose corn syrup from the way that they "process" it, I don't like the idea of the possiblity of more mercury in our food due to needing a way to deal with coal fire plant waste. There is no such thing as clean coal and putting the waste on our crops doesn't make sense to me.

We have a plant here that 'scrubs' the coal plant stacks and recycles the gypsum into building friendly gypsum board used in construction. They, the 2 plants, have a unique working and manufacturing process that benefits all.and that cleans up the 'mess' and reuses the 'leftovers' in Eco-friendly ways.