Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.


I certainly would not use biosolids if it put my family in danger

To The Daily Sun,

I have been a Gilmanton resident for almost 50 years and I have been the closest to the biosolid operation. I am very surprised that my husband and I were overlooked and unaware of the underhanded and secretive petition brought around against the biosolid operation without any questions being asked of those in the know about its uses and any possible dangers. The people who spoke against and signed the petitions are not backed up by facts, but only personal opinions.

The biosolid trucks come and go across our driveway and as a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother of family right here in the area, I am insulted to think that anyone would even think that my husband and I would put our most prized possessions in any kind of danger.

As to the smell, we live in the country and have accepted neighboring manure smells (not endorsed by Avon), helping to round up pigs, horses, cows wandering on our property as well as early morning roosters, chickens, and more noises. The biosolid smell only lasts a short time.

I suggest that those ignorant of biosolid values for the preservation of beautiful fields, and its non-harmful effects, to read up more closely on the issues and perhaps they will better understand its necessities and be able to vote intelligently for its non-interrupted continuance in the coming election voting. Please support our local farmers.

Janice McWhinnie

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 441

Any cost savings biosolids bring to table not enough for me

To The Daily Sun,

The minutes from the Gilmanton Deliberative Session, held on Jan. 30, 2016, are on the town website. They are concise, but I believe they missed a few key points of the discussion of Article 3 regarding bio¬≠solids (aka sludge).

First, the definition of the term sludge should have been included. It means "any solid, semisolid or liquid waste generated from municipal, commercial or industrial waste water treatment plant." (EPA RCAA (26A)). These are the remains after the liquids have been removed from sewage. The contaminants in this sludge could include hazardous waste, chemicals, viruses, bacteria and heavy metals such as mercury, zinc and lead.

Secondly, the reason that I mentioned the article regarding more than 600 tons of sludge being spread on a field at a cost savings of less than $600 over commercial fertilizer was to also state the real cost to the area residents of Greenland. Conditions included respiratory/breathing issues and rashes, but I think the worst tragedy was the death of 26-year-old Shayne Conner (See www.sludgevictims.com).

The health and welfare of our families, pets, water, land and that of our neighbors are too valuable to risk. Any cost savings that the use of bio¬≠solids may claim to offer our local farmers is not enough to sway my vote this time.

On March 8 please join me and vote "Yes" on Article 3 to ban the use of biosolids (Class A and Class B) in our town.

Barbara E. Swanson


  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 369