Posted By Ian Blenkharn
Infections and other adverse health effects – mainly allergic – that are associated with composting are generally linked to a high fungal biomass. Indeed, aspergillosis was identified in the report mentioned by the original correspondent making your discourse on matters bacteriological somewhat redundant.
Legionella have been reported in this situation, albeit rarely. So rare in fact that it leads you far off target. Your focus on bacteria rather than fungi brings mention of both spores and endotoxin, though you should know that the two are mutually exclusive. Sporulating Gram positive species have a fundamentally different cell wall structure and composition to the endotoxin-rich cell walls of Gram negative species. And take care not to confuse bacterial and fungal spores.
Next you turn to “botulitis”. You might know the name of the organism to which you refer, and of the disease process, botulism, that it can cause. But it is Clostridium botulinum that causes botulism. That inaccuracy alone gives me cause for concern. Don’t blame the spell checker.
And just what causes botulism? With few exceptions, ingestion of pre-formed botulinum toxin. That toxin is an exotoxin, not an endotoxin. It is nothing like an endotoxin, in origin, in structure, in composition, or in biological activity. The distinction is not just a couple of letters that slip though a spell checker, but is far more profound. Think chalk and cheese.
From here you jump to metalworking fluids, though I’m not clear how you perceive the link from composing to legionnaires disease, to botulism, to MWF. With MWF, attribute the cause of a diverse range of symptoms from simple dermatitis to asthma to severe and potentially debilitating extrinsic allergic alveolitis, to the presence in MWF of endotoxins. There is limited evidence for this, though that evidence is not strong. Indeed, it may be flawed, at least in part, as many affected individuals will show an immunological response to mycobacterial and other Gram positive cell wall fractions. Endotoxins may be significant in some cases, but such sweeping generalisations ignore, or reveal a lack of understanding of, a large body of highly complex information. The published data, the facts, go back as far as the early 1950s. It makes interesting reading.
As an aside, you tell us that endotoxins are liberated as bacteria die. That is true, but of course relates only to Gram negative species. Your additional comment that inhalation of endotoxins can be associated with respiratory systems is equally true, but the comment about endotoxins in cuts is risible.
And now to the spore-forming bacterium Clostridium difficile. Here you make a couple of points with which I would not disagree, though in what way you believe that information might have anything to do with the issue at hand simply defies logic.
Then straight back to compost, where you focus again on the possibility that within it bacteria can generate spores. That is indeed true but you link that, quantitatively, with a possible hazard. Where is the evidence? It does not exist. Not legionnaires (that’s a Gram negative non-spore forming species), not aspergillosis (that’s a fungus, one of several that are now recognised as potentially harmful in this situation). Not antibiotic-associated diarrhoea or pseudomembranous colitis caused by C difficile. And nothing to do with bacterial endotoxins, or for that matter with bacterial exotoxins either.
It really is important to stick to what you know. It is equally important for those who seek information in this place to satisfy themselves that what they read has some basis in fact, and is neither misleading nor simply wrong.
Being positive, this is all about knowledge, the depth and breadth of that knowledge, how that knowledge is presented, and an understanding of its limitations. Helping others with fact is a laudable intention, and expressions of opinion make for lively discussion and a stimulating exchange of views. There must however be some checks and controls. The moderators, in their rather thankless task, deal admirably with many issues but cannot be expected to judge on the quality of badly muddled and in part hopelessly incorrect information in specialist areas. As an experienced microbiologist with a substantial research-led background in almost every one of the areas through which you chose to wander, I thought it important to point out to others that they should take caution. That view has not changed.
Saying that you have recently worked closely with microbiologists tells me enough. It tells me that you are not a microbiologist, and that you should not consider working alongside one as sufficient to impart any experience or understanding of the subject(s). I work alongside many experienced professionals but would not believe for one moment that that gives me a proper knowledge of their respective specialist subjects.
You asked for an explanation. I hope that you can accept that explanation, presented in a way that provides to others an awareness of the issues involved and the need to ensure that what they read is actually worth reading.