You know there was absolutely no reason this experiment could not have been conducted on a vacant lot or a road side. The lead levels near highways are equal to or greater than those in residential areas of Baltimore. There was no valid reason to increase the potential lead inhalation levels for residents or to expose them to any pathogens (yes, pathogens are still viable and alive in compost--ask the EPA!).

The only reason for conducting the study around humans who could be harmed by ingesting lead dust and tracking the dust into the homes was the advantage of having a poor section of East Baltimore as a testing site to enhance the study attraction to HUD. Another plus was the residents were all black people living in subsidized housing. Perfect match for HUD funding the study.

There would never have been funding if the proposal was for planting grass on the roadside or on a vacant lot. The grass would still have been grown, but it would have not cost almost one-half million dollars to do it!

You are right, the people had nothing to do with this study; so why test around humans? No blood lead levels were drawn or health evaluations made before the grass was planted, so how could the scientist really know that the blood lead level would drop for any children ingesting dust or dirt before or after the grass was grown.

Bottom line: US Housing and Urban Development awarded $450,000 of taxpayer dollars to a scientist to prove that he could grow Kentucky Bluegrass on lead contaminated ground with free composted sewage sludge which was a free scientific study to enhance the value of a commercial product--Orgro. Do you have any ethical questions about this?

The average cost for each of the nine yards was from $150-$350. What a deal; and Kentucky Bluegrass is not even a phytoremediation plant!

Nancy Holt