Page 1 of 1
Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 1st, 2019, 9:35 pm
by merrimack
There was an interesting article in the Boston Globe today about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Bay State fertilizer. The MWRA recently started monitoring PFAS levels in Bay State fertilizer in response to regulations in Maine.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/ ... story.html
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 1st, 2019, 10:24 pm
by TimmyG
Thanks for sharing.
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 2nd, 2019, 10:08 am
by PSU4ME
Hmm that’s something. I assume there is something unfavorable in everything I use..... need to find a local SBM supplier at a decent rate. I’d love to use true organics but I can’t find a type in MA that I can get at a fair bulk price
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 2nd, 2019, 10:32 am
by mitten
Wow, interesting article. Makes me wonder how Milorganite would test...
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 2nd, 2019, 10:35 am
by PSU4ME
Agreed, and if they both show it, the process to remove the PFAS could be costly......
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 2nd, 2019, 1:03 pm
by dantis496
Interesting...and makes me wonder...to continue to use or not...
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 2nd, 2019, 1:15 pm
by PSU4ME
Same here and I just picked up a full pallet 2 weeks ago.....
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 3rd, 2019, 10:41 am
by turf_toes
PSU4ME wrote: ↑December 2nd, 2019, 10:35 am
Agreed, and if they both show it, the process to remove the PFAS could be costly......
From what I’ve read elsewhere, the issue is specifically with bay state and how/where they’re getting their source materials. It does not seem to apply to other similar products.
There’s no need to jump to speculation about other products just yet.
“ Linda Lee, an environmental chemist at Purdue University, has tested sludge from treatment plants around the country, including from the MWRA, where she found that Bay State Fertilizer contained 34,000 parts per trillion of more than a dozen of the chemicals.
”At this point, however, she doesn’t think such fertilizers should be banned.“
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston ... utType=amp
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 3rd, 2019, 4:31 pm
by PSU4ME
turf_toes wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2019, 10:41 am
There’s no need to jump to speculation about other products just yet.
I don’t disagree and wasn’t saying that milo had it, that’s why I said “if”. Hopefully something they can address it in the process without significant cost. I don’t mind paying a little more for a safer product.
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 4th, 2019, 6:12 pm
by PSU4ME
Just adding some more info for folks to read. Seems like it’s all about how you interpret things in a relative comparison.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... edcalc.pdf
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 4th, 2019, 6:36 pm
by TimmyG
Again, thanks for sharing.
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 5th, 2019, 11:54 am
by This is me
So BSF actually have the lowest PFAS compare to Milorgantite and Oceangrow based on that chart.
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 5th, 2019, 8:55 pm
by HoosierLawnGnome
Ship all your unwanted BSF to me for safe disposal!
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 15th, 2019, 9:45 am
by KBGkicksazz
I think this is enough reason to certainly not use Bay State as I’m on a well and until I learn more about PFAS in Milorganite I’ll just stick with my Humagrow products and synthetic Fert.
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 17th, 2019, 10:38 am
by spectrum1c
I never realized how ubiquitous PFAS were around us.
https://www.multipure.com/purely-social ... ing-water/
I'll likely keep using baystate, but will not put down when the kids around (i.e. put it down in the evening and keep kids in the house for the rest of the day). After reading the above article, I'll also cut back on using nonstick cookware
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 23rd, 2019, 5:11 pm
by Smolenski7
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the danger seems to come if these PFAS are ingested in some way, particularly via drinking water, or, in the case written about in the Boston Globe article concerning a couple that ran a dairy farm, I would assume from drinking the milk their cows were producing. There was no mention of any risk to the person, like just about everyone here on ATY, that applies the product in relatively small quantities to a suburban yard.
I mention this only because the comparison between PFAS and DDT was mentioned. DDT was banned in the U.S. before I was born, but is still in use in parts of the world to control malaria infested mosquitoes. It's now been found to cause harm even from low exposures. The exposure though is mainly air born, not ingested via water/milk like how exposure to PFAS is suggested in the article.
Am I wrong?
Re: Boston Globe Article on PFAS in Bay State Fertilizer
Posted: December 27th, 2019, 8:43 pm
by KBGkicksazz
We have people on the site applying pallets of it I would consider that no different than a farmer spreading it over a field.
I’m on a well but even if you are on city water the PFAS cAn leach and end up in the water supply. They don’t degrade so repeat apps just means the concentration increases in your soil. Kids ingest soil all the time as well.
This situation would seem to be busting a paradigm for use of Milo.
Personally I’ve found the bigger benefit is spreading some compost and using iron.
Smolenski7 wrote: ↑December 23rd, 2019, 5:11 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the danger seems to come if these PFAS are ingested in some way, particularly via drinking water, or, in the case written about in the Boston Globe article concerning a couple that ran a dairy farm, I would assume from drinking the milk their cows were producing. There was no mention of any risk to the person, like just about everyone here on ave ATY, that applies the product in relatively small quantities to a suburban yard.
I mention this only because the comparison between PFAS and DDT was mentioned. DDT was banned in the U.S. before I was born, but is still in use in parts of the world to control malaria infested mosquitoes. It's now been found to cause harm even from low exposures. The exposure though is mainly air born, not ingested via water/milk like how exposure to PFAS is suggested in the article.
Am I wrong?