that lovin spoonful

For months there has been a story circulating about how the salt barn pollution of the surrounding neighborhood was discovered. Apparently Mr. Bennett, whose farm abuts the salt barn facility, developed serious high blood pressure which was hard to explain. In trying to understand the cause of his condition, the well water was tested and found to have a high salt content. It appears that over the years the Bennett’s adapted to unnoticeable increases in salt in their well water as the salt facility quietly contaminated their land. This is a sad testament to the 3rd world managerial and fiscal irresponsibility of the Town of Woodstock and we, the taxpayers are ultimately at fault and liable. Dave Hosmer clearly recognized the importance of this pollution problem when he stated the “Town is under DEP mandate to replace (the) salt shed … salt run-off has polluted the Bennett farm … the Bennett family should wait no longer for clean water” when he single-handedly promoted the passing of the bond referendum last week.

I did some literature searching on Google to try to educate myself on the relationship between salt intake and hypertension (e.g. high blood pressure). I simply searched “hypertension and salt” (in quotes) and the first paper I discovered was by Bisi et al. from the Departamento de Enfermagem, Centro Biomedico, Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo, Vitoria, ES, Brasil entitled “Hypertension and salt intake in an urban population”. The conclusion of the paper was that “salt intake is strongly influenced by socioeconomic level and may partially explain the higher prevalence of hypertension in lower socioeconomic classes” (published in Rev. Saude Publica 37:743-750, 2003 in Portuguese). Woodstock is not supposed to be part of the 3rd world (like the lower class neighborhoods of Brasil), we do not live in an urban area, and the Bennett’s are not from a lower socioeconomic class, but the result is the same. Insidious chronic salt pollution of drinking water can lead to hypertension and, no-doubt, other health problems.

In another study, Zucker rats that are naturally hypertensive “display a further increase in arterial pressure when fed a high salt diet” (Carlson et al. Hypertension 35:403-408, 2000 out of the Univ. of Alabama). But, we are not rats, nor are we naturally hypertensive. Maybe we should look at the positive side of this seepage – the rats, field mice, snakes, fisher cats, and all other wildlife probably left the salt barn drain field a long time ago and now hangout in other more remote parts of Woodstock where life is good. But the Bennett’s and their cows, unknowing of the problem, stayed.

To some up the problem, I quote from a recent review by de la Sierra et al. from Barcelona Spain at the 3rd Congress of Nephrology “Excessive salt intake is one of the most important environmental contributors to the high prevalence of hypertension and cardiovascular disease in developed countries. Various animal species, including primates, develop blood pressure elevation when exposed to high salt diets” (further referencing Denton et al. in The effect of increased salt intake on blood pressure of chimpanzees. Nat Med 1: 1009-1016, 1995). “In humans, the link between salt intake and blood pressure has been established in cross-sectional and longitudinal epidemiological studies” (further referencing Muntzel and Drucke, A comprehensive review of the salt and blood pressure relationship in American J Hypertension 5: 1S-42S, 1992).

Much has been written about the relationship of high salt intake and hypertension in the medical literature in spite of the fact that table salt manufacturers call salt “that lovin’ spoonful” - a practice in marketing similar to the practices of the tobacco industry for decades.

Presumably the salt barn has been decaying for years. This leads me to wonder about when pollution concerns arising from the salt barn decay were first recognized.

Was it during the Neuman, Wetzel, or Very leadership, or was it only discovered after Ms. Wholean’s election?
Was action to correct the problem delayed by the desire to avoid placing this remediation in the budget?
Was there any consideration of the impact of delay on the health of the Bennetts, their cows, and any other neighbors in the area?

I don’t know the Bennetts except to say that I feel that they are part of the family of Woodstock and it appears that we have let them down. I have a feeling that most residents cannot relate to the Bennetts or their health problems stemming from the salt barn facility. Leaching salt is not a sexy topic. The majority of voters on Tuesday apparently thought that the Town should not act quickly to correct the situation. Those that did not show up apparently could not make the connection between the leaching salt and the Bennetts. Mr. Wetzel thinks “it’s a beautiful thing” and Ms. Wholean said blandly in the Bull that “if the bond (is) defeated, town officials (will) explore ways to fund the projects” after doing nothing to promote the bond in the first place. In this same Bull article Highway Department Foreman Dwight Ryniewicz (apparently unaware of the Bennetts contection to the bond referendum) said “the department needs a new salt shed because the existing facilities are outdated and worn. It would be nice to have that shed so we could store materials. The shed now is too small for town needs - the structure is falling down.” And, in the same Bull article a resident (also not seeing the connection to the Bennetts) said ”just too much money”. It’s just going to raise our taxes too much.”

The only thing that seems certain to me is that WE, the TOWN of WOODSTOCK, now owe the Bennetts big time.