Kings Grant II Groundwater Recharge Facility

[WAMBA]

i came across something interesting the other day and i thought i'd see if anybody could give more info on it. i was planning to hide a geocache in the kings grant ii parcel of protected land in evesham that runs between kettle run road and the southern part of the original kings grant development.

here's an overall view of the area, which is bordered by kettle run on the west, the links golf club and kings grant on the north, and borton's road/little mill country club on the southeast:
http://maps.google.com/?ll=39.836948,-74.886246&spn=0.01908,0.047121&t=h

you'll notice that there's some abandoned cranberry bogs as well as two manmade reservoirs. i thought this area looked like it had some interesting stuff and would make a good location to hide a cache, but when i got there the entire area was marked private property so i decided to just do some quick and careful exploration instead. the owner listed on the signs was EMUA, which i suspected and later confirmed was evesham municipal utilities authority.

anyway, i went in from the dirt road that runs between kettle run and bortons road. i found a winding dirt road with numbers painted on trees every so often. after i'd gone a little ways i finally noticed what these numbers seemed to be marking. i looked to the side of my car and saw what looked like a big gun mounted on a tripod. immediately i imagined some sort of evil fortress protected by tripod-mounted automatic sentry guns and wondered if i should dive for cover. but curiosity got the better of me, and i went up to the thing to take a closer look. i wish i'd had a camera so i could post pics, but basically when i got to the tripod i say that it seemed to be a heavy duty revolving sprinkler (i think the brand name stamped on it was actually "water gun"). there was a pipe leading into it and as i looked into the woods i could see that the pipe followed a narrow corridor that had been cut through the forest, with similar sprinklers mounted every few hundred feet.

i was puzzled as to why this irrigation system would be in place in the middle of an average tract of woods where nothing seemed to have been intentionally planted.

when i got up to the side-by-side basins i could see that there was a large pump next to one of them that seemed to have the main irrigation piper running out of it. i think the way it works is that the main pipe comes from re, there, and then side pipes jut out perpendicular to the main pipe through narrow corridors that have been cut through the woods. you can't see any of the smaller pipe on satellite pics, but you can very clearly make out what i think is the main pipe:
http://maps.google.com/?t=h&ll=39.833199,-74.886224&spn=0.0025,0.00589

i'm not completely sure if i've got the pipe configuration right. anyway, i was fascinated as to why somebody was going to what looked to be quite a bt of expense and trouble to irrigate a random patch of woods. i did some poking around online and found out that this area is apparently a spray irrigation type groundwater recharge site. however, it's hard to find a straight answer about what exactly that means. it seems to have something to do with spraying recycled wastewater over a large area of ground so it will pass through the soil and replenish the water table. on its way, it apparently deposits nutrients into the soil as well. from what i've gleaned from online research, it seems that this practice is considered environmentally friendly and evesham is something of a pioneer; not many townships have facilities like these yet. anyway, i think i've managed to find the basic background info about what this site is and why it's there, but i was wondering if anybody could provide more in-depth information about exactly what it does and how it works.

i apologize for not having pictures of what i'm talking about, for some reason i didn't bring my camera that day. if i ever find myself back in there i'll get some shots of the pipes, reservoirs, and water guns to post as well.

also, not sure if this is technically within the pine barrens but it is within the large area that evesham/medford have been working to preserve and not far from the sanctuary where they stopped development cause of timber rattlesnakes.

on an unrelated note, during my research i learned that the former aero haven airport just south of here, where evesham previously tried to build a sports field complex, has 120,000 cubic ft of abestos buried under it. it's amazing how stuff like that can be there and you'd never know it driving by or even living next to it without doing some digging...literally!

[bobpbx]

There is also a technique to get rid of underground pollutants by "stripping" with air. They pump the water out of the ground and when it hits the air the pollutant gases are stripped off and float away. At least I think that is the way it happens. They do it at Lakehurst all the time where the blimps used to dump fuel to lighten the load upon landing (I think). Maybe its aviation fuel they are cleaning up.

[WAMBA]

maybe, except from what i could tell it sounds like the water that's being shot out over the ground isn't from that area but actually comes in as recycled wastewater from elsewhere. there were also mentions of using recycled wastewater to irrigate gold clubs and i believe evesham even has a golf club that uses wastewater for irrigation, but oddly enough if i recall it's not one of the two that borders the kings grant ii land, it's in a completely different area of evesham.

[Gerania]

Strangely enough, that populace area filled with houses and golf courses is in the Pine Barrens. Yes, The Sanctuary, aka rattlesnake roundup, my name for it, is just across the road as is Woodford Cedar Run Wildlife Refuge.

I've wondered about those two square bodies of water. I've been intending for some time to have a look at the old bog area and swing by there on the way out. The old airport is kind of interesting too. I never heard about the asbestos being buried there.

The other golf course you mentioned is probably Indian Springs.

I don't have any tech information on the grey water thing right now.

Gillian

[RednekF350]

What you have found are the wastewater lagoons from the existing Kings Grant wastewater treatment palnt.
The excess wastewater is sprayed throughout the area by the guns you found.
Waterford's plant did the same thing from about 1978 until around 1996.
The nitratre pollution in Waterford's spray fields was through the roof and the Pinelands Commission finally allowed the entire plant to tie into the CCMUA Camden plant by way of a huge and expensive interconnection.
Here is a 2005 article about the Kings Grant II lands and the future acquisition and preservation of same.

Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 25, 2005

'HOME RUN' DEAL PRESERVES 914 ACRES

The town, sewer authority and Pinelands Commission agreed on passive
recreation at Kings Grant II and Aerohaven Park.

By Rusty Pray, Inquirer Staff Writer

Evesham and its Municipal Utilities Authority have reached an
agreement with the Pinelands Commission that preserves 722 acres of
environmentally sensitive land in the southern part of the township.

There had been preliminary approval for 244 townhouses on the site,
known as Kings Grant II.

The 192-acre Aerohaven Park, a former private airport where township
officials once considered building ball fields, also will be
preserved. There was the potential for 21 homes at Aerohaven.

Kings Grant II and Aerohaven, which are contiguous, are part of the
Pine Barrens and under Pinelands Commission restrictions. The
commission signed off on the deal this month.

Township officials, environmentalists and nearby residents supported
the agreement, which restricts use of both tracts to passive
recreation.

"No matter what, it's a home run," Mayor Gus Tamburro said. The acres
will be added to the 3,000 the township already owns, he said.

Officials hope to go to settlement this year, Township Manager Ed
Sasdelli said.

Carleton Montgomery, president of the Pinelands Preservation Alliance,
called it a "very positive decision by the town. The current
leadership responded to a pretty broad public consensus not to have
ball fields there."

Evesham had agreed to buy the Kings Grant II tract from the utilities
authority, an independent government body that owns the land, for $4.6
million. Fifty percent will be funded by state Green Acres program and
25 percent through Burlington County's open-space fund.

The township will pay the remaining 25 percent through an in-kind
contribution, giving the sewage authority an easement to build three
groundwater recharge basins on about 12 acres at Aerohaven. The
township owns the Aerohaven site.

Lou Russo, executive director of the authority, said the new basins
would form the "final disposal" for its Kings Grant sewage treatment
plant, which can treat 700,000 gallons a day. Currently, about 225,000
gallons a day of treated wastewater is disposed of in two recharge
basins in Kings Grant II. The rest is spray-irrigated on Kings Grant
II land.

The Municipal Utilities Authority plans to abandon the spray
irrigation and sell the treated wastewater to the Links and Little
Mill golf courses for irrigation. The township-owned Indian Spring
Country Club already is irrigated with treated wastewater.

The agreement is seen as a victory for residents in the southern half
of the township, who for years had fought development or active
recreation on the land. They include residents of the Sanctuary, the
upscale development where the Pinelands Commission twice halted
construction because the threatened northern pine snake and endangered
timber rattlesnake were found. The commission has since reached
agreements with developers allowing construction to continue.

Contact staff writer Rusty Pray at 856-779-3894 or
rpray@phillynews.com.

Copyright 2005 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources.



:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::

Scott

[wis bang]

The Minute Maid Juce plant in Heightstown was sending juce/sucrose waste water to a Treatment plant by truck. They tired to get permission to build a pipeline to a tree farm in Washington Twsp and spray it on the trees but it was NIMBYied down.

[ebsi2001]

WAMBA,

Evidently what you "stumbled accross" was a "groundwater recharging system" for the Evesham MUA. After wastewater is treated, aerobically, it is run through a filter that separates the liquid (effluent) from the solids (sludge). In the "old days," the sludge was dried (in the sun) in so--called "drying beds." Today, the sludge is either incinerated or injected (with permission of the State) into the ground. Turf farms are a primary recipient for sewage sludge. Isn't that nice to know?:jeffd: Go ahead, see if I care: Pollute your property with heavy metal ions!:mad:

Over a decade ago, the Mount Laurel MUA, was, contrary to popular belief, a privately owned enterprise. Located on a piece of property between the north-- and southbound lanes of 295, they "decanted" their "treated" effluent into the Rancocas. If the BOD of their supernatant was within limits, they felt they were "good to go."

Evidently, Evesham didn't have a nearby creek handy... Effluent stinks, so spraying it on golf courses is definitely "out," unless you want to T--off a lot of people. :rofl: So, the next best/easiest solution is to spray it in the "woods" on private property... Over a decade ago, I was told that Vineland, in Cumberland County, was doing just that.

What's wrong with this practice, you might ask? Number one, treated wastewater (WW) effluent contains a wide variety of chemicals that are more--or--less resistent to the organisms present in aerobic WW systems. Therefore, such effluent can contain chemicals that are harmful to the flora, fauna --- and, yes, to humans, too! Such chemicals include, but are not limited to antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents. Also, WW systems do not "break down" viruses, therefore effluent from aerobic WW treatment systems, although "treated" with sodium hypochlorite (Chlorox) before "discharge," can possibly contain some "viable" viruses or virus particles, as well as some very resistant spores from a wide variety of microorganisms.

When WW effluent leaches into the ground, it will carry/transport some of these deleterious substances in the leachate. The rest will remain on the surface, where they may dry and be carried by the wind or rain (groundwater run--off). Furthermore, treated WW effluent contains a number of dissolved salts, primarily nitrates and phosphates, which can cause eutrophication of nearby ponds and streams, promoting unabated algae growth and killing fish through oxygen depletion.

That is why tertiary WW treatment systems are needed in NJ. Reverse osmosis is one possibility, but it requires a LOT of energy. There are other issues, as well... As we continue to engage in the overdevelopment of South Jersey, we emperil our very existence by rampant pollution.

ebsi

[bobpbx]

Ebis, this subject must be (or was) knowledge you picked up in your career, which was?

[ebsi2001]

Ebis, this subject must be (or was) knowledge you picked up in your career, which was?

Bob,

Yes, I've picked--up quite a bit of "moss" along the way...

If I told you, you would only have two choices:


...take a ride in Bobby Kennedy's car
or...visit Dick Cheney, drink a couple of beers and go quail hunting!
:mrgreen:

Seriously, I defy description.:guinness:

ebsi

[WAMBA]

If the BOD of their supernatant was within limits, they felt they were "good to go."

Evidently, Evesham didn't have a nearby creek handy... Effluent stinks, so spraying it on golf courses is definitely "out," unless you want to T--off a lot of people. :rofl:

ebsi

does BOD have something to do with the level of contaminants?

and also isn't that news article saying that they already are spraying the effluent on one golf course and they plan to do it on two more in the future? it seemed like they were moving it to the golf courses cause people were aleady ticked off about them spraying it in the woods...

when you talk about tertiary treatment, do you mean that they need to remove the salts/contaminants further from the wastewater before releasing it back into land/waterways?

[wis bang]

BOD = Biological Oxygen Demand, in a previous life I used to have to report TOD, COD & BOD from wastewater analysis to our local POTW.

[NanticokePiney]

I don't see that method removing the various new and exotic cleaning agents and household chemicals people flush.
Up where I grew up on Governors Hill outside of Chatsworth, Dupont was dumping 3M reel to reel film in huge pits. The silver nitrate has long passed though Chatsworth and many people in my generation have some real problems but they never did the math. Luckily the water came up in Greenwood WMA and passed though our property first before going through those pits.

[ebsi2001]

does BOD have something to do with the level of contaminants?

and also isn't that news article saying that they already are spraying the effluent on one golf course and they plan to do it on two more in the future? it seemed like they were moving it to the golf courses cause people were aleady ticked off about them spraying it in the woods...

when you talk about tertiary treatment, do you mean that they need to remove the salts/contaminants further from the wastewater before releasing it back into land/waterways?

1. Yes.

The BOD5 measures the amount of oxygen microorganisms require in five days to break down sewage. WW effluent should ideally have a low BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand), so that releasing it into the environment (usually surface water) will impact (deplete the dissolved oxygen) the environment as little as possible. The State sets limits. However, measuring the BOD is as much an "art" as it is a "science"...:jeffd:

2. "Jein!" That's "German" slang for "yes" and "no."

If you own a piece of property that is relatively "isolated" (and "posted" for "tresspassing") there shouldn't be all that many complaints. However, if the volume of effluent is large enough, run--off could pose a "problem" (eutrophication) for nearby ponds, lakes and streams, primarily due to dissolved nitrates and phosphates, and to decomposible organics...

Golf courses, however, have immense, grassy surfaces that require daily watering --- and a need for frequent fertilization. "Clean" water is becoming scarce --- and expensive: Townships are "pinched" for money. So, "watering/fertilizing" golf courses with effluent theoretically "solves" two problems. However, effuent is "odiferous," sometimes EXTREMELY so... As early as two decades ago, processes were being "implemented" to "deodorize" effluent. Perhaps, in the interim they have improved greatly on those processes?:jeffd:

However, "deodorization" will not remove contaminants from the effluent, which may pose a "health hazard." Sometimes, its healthier NOT to be an "athletic supporter"...:rofl:

3. Yes.

...but not just salts. Organic substances of all types should also be removed. Such further treatment, however, is very "energy intensive," and, thus, VERY EXPENSIVE ! Effective "remediation" of all "removed" contaminents would be an additional problem, as well. Burying them in a "secure" landfill is "bone headed" and pure folly, and only serves to add to the total cost of remediation...:jeffd:

All new construction, especially those large, Hovanian--type developments, ALL hotels, motels, big businesses of all types and ALL CASINOS should be REQUIRED by the State to install so--called "grey water" systems, or pay an amount to the local POWTF in excess of 10 (ten) times their maximal monthly sewage output.

Such "grey--water" systems would be large enough to hold one--and--one--half the maximal daily demand for water for "dirty water" (toilet flushing). This, along with the concomitant installation of low--demand, high efficiency toilets, would help protect our water supply, while also reducing salt water intrusion into our acquifers.

ebsi

[WAMBA]

This, along with the concomitant installation of low--demand, high efficiency toilets, would help protect our water supply, while also reducing salt water intrusion into our acquifers.
ebsi

I must say i'm not convinced about these new toilets. we just got all the toilets in our house replaced with "high efficiency" ones that use less water, but they've been clogging constantly. you pretty much have to flush them twice as many times to be sure they won't clog, which i often forget to do. i'm not sure how much water our old ones used vs the new ones, but i doubt it was twice as much, so it seems that in reality they may actually be less efficient and much more frustrating.

i'm almost to the point of trying to find some sort of black market toilet dealer who can sell us some older, unrestricted ones just like they did with high-output showerheads on seinfeld...of course that didn't exactly turn out so well for them as i recall :rofl:

[TeeGate]

There is a constant stream of American's crossing the border to Canada where you can buy normal toilets. Just don't get caught! I was sure tempted on doing that after I bought the one I have. They really are a pain.


Guy

[ebsi2001]

I must say i'm not convinced about these new toilets. we just got all the toilets in our house replaced with "high efficiency" ones that use less water, but they've been clogging constantly. you pretty much have to flush them twice as many times to be sure they won't clog, which i often forget to do. i'm not sure how much water our old ones used vs the new ones, but i doubt it was twice as much, so it seems that in reality they may actually be less efficient and much more frustrating.


European toilets use less water, and they work better! I guess it's a matter of water pressure and proper installation... :)

ebsi

[wis bang]

There is one where the tank is a pressure tank. The flush sounds like a Jet starting...

Buyer beware. I have one of each of the regular ones and the new one plugs constanly...I hope the older one never needs replacement

[TeeGate]

I hope the older one never needs replacement


Treat it like the Porcelain God that it is. :)

Guy

[bobpbx]

Treat it like the Porcelain God that it is. :)

Guy

Good one Guy! I hug mine!

[amf]

...So, "watering/fertilizing" golf courses with effluent theoretically "solves" two problems. However, effuent is "odiferous," sometimes EXTREMELY so... As early as two decades ago, processes were being "implemented" to "deodorize" effluent...


As a wwtp employee, I think it safe to say effluent from a modern plant treating to secondary levels is odor free. Which is not to say the process may not have odors... but what is returned to the environment does not.

A lot of misconceptions surround the topic... we routinely test the effluent, and insofar as metals are concerned it is generally better than the groundwater most folks drink.

Not trying to pass any judgement on the Kings Grant facility, but the state typically requires those plants that discharge to groundwater to meet drinking water standards for nitrates and metals.

[ebsi2001]

As a wwtp employee, I think it safe to say effluent from a modern plant treating to secondary levels is odor free. Which is not to say the process may not have odors... but what is returned to the environment does not.

A lot of misconceptions surround the topic... we routinely test the effluent, and insofar as metals are concerned it is generally better than the groundwater most folks drink.

Not trying to pass any judgement on the Kings Grant facility, but the state typically requires those plants that discharge to groundwater to meet drinking water standards for nitrates and metals.

I freely admit that my knowledge base is 15 years old. However, all I can say is that, "The State (and all of the local POWTFs!) must have cleaned--up their 'act(s),' big time, in order to be able to comply with all your claims...". That most certainly wasn't the case 15 years ago, when they were doing sludge injections on specific farms in "Central Jersey." :jeffd:

It would interest me how they are "removing" the nitrates and heavy metals. Also, it would be nice to know the ultimate fate of those "residues."

I have never heard of any State limitations with regard to viral particles and non-- or difficult decomposible organics, such as certain antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents, but, then, maybe someone has been doing their homework. :v: We can always hope! :jd:

ebsi

[amf]

I freely admit that my knowledge base is 15 years old. However, all I can say is that, "The State (and all of the local POWTFs!) must have cleaned--up their 'act(s),'.... <snip> ... I have never heard of any State limitations with regard to viral particles and non-- or difficult decomposible organics, such as certain antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents...

There have definitely been improvements, at least what I see where I am. The antibiotics etc. are becoming a bigger issue, particularly as we become aware of them. Speaking from a downstate treatment facility, that takes in a lot of septage from surrounding rural areas, I find in general that homeowners on wells & septic systems are far and away the most significant contributors of potential pollutants. Groundwater ph is low, which eats away at any metal it comes in contact with. This all accumulates in the septic system, ultimately going back to the groundwater. Drugs that do not degrade tend to bio-accumulate, again becoming concentrated in a septic system. We briefly imposed a ban on septic disposal about a year ago... talk about an uproar!

[WAMBA]

Drugs that do not degrade tend to bio-accumulate, again becoming concentrated in a septic system.

does this mean that the antibiotics being referred to are literally drugs that people take that aren't broken down inside their body but instead expelled out the other end into the sewage system? i'm learning so much from this thread!

could all the viral particles sitting in septic sludge along with antibiotics possibly create antibiotic-resistant superstrains of those viruses? or am i just thinking like a mad (albeit uninformed) scientist?

[TeeGate]

So we should not throw old drugs down the toilet or drain???

Guy

[ebsi2001]

So we should not throw old drugs down the toilet or drain???

Guy

Theoretically, NO!!!

Practically: They're probably better--off flushed than thrown in the trash and sent to a lined landfill.

The US is decades behind some other countries in protecting our environment. Germany has had a "drug recycling programme" for at least 25 years. Patrons can take old, out--of--date, or unwanted drugs of all kinds to any pharmacy. There the drugs are collected. At the regional level, the drugs are sorted and then sent to "disposal centres" where they are disposed of in a way that will not endanger man nor beast, flora or fauna.

BTW: Don't flush oil (cooking or otherwise), paint of any kind, solvents, or old corn cobs :mrgreen: down the toilet! :eng101:

ebsi

[ebsi2001]

does this mean that the antibiotics being referred to are literally drugs that people take that aren't broken down inside their body but instead expelled out the other end into the sewage system? i'm learning so much from this thread!

could all the viral particles sitting in septic sludge along with antibiotics possibly create antibiotic-resistant superstrains of those viruses? or am i just thinking like a mad (albeit uninformed) scientist?

WAMBA,

Some drugs (or, a LARGE proportion of some drugs), especially antibiotics, pass through the human system virtually unchanged, or the change(s) /breakdown in the liver results in substances that are excreted either in the urine, or in the feces, which can pose a threat to a wide variety of organisms. WW treatment plants host a wide variety of organisms, bacteria, fungi, unicellular organisms and multicellular organisms, too. A "slug" of toxic substances can kill--off or greatly diminish the population of one or more of these organisms that are necessary/integral to the biodecomposition of raw sewage. If that happens, the system can "turn," and it may be necessary to release raw sewage into the environment, until the system "normalizes." Oils, paints, solvents, acids and alkalis in the "WW stream" all pose a potential threat to the "healthy" operation of a WW treatment facility... Raw sewage will contain antibiotics and chemotherapeutic agents, as well as a wide assortment of hormones and some other chemicals that are hard to "breakdown," and which pose a human health hazard.

Viruses, or "viral particles" do NOT possess an intermediary metabolism, i.e. they are inanimate (not alive). Simply stated: viral particles are simply "constructs" of protein and DNA or RNA. In order to do "their thing," they need living host cells. The virus penetrates the cell wall of its host, injects its DNA (or RNA), which is then "spliced" into the genetic material of the host, and, then, the metabolism of the host cell is "reprogrammed" to clone the viruses.

Viruses do not react to antibiotics. If you have the flu, all of the antibiotics in the world will not "cure" it. :jeffd: Physicians often administer antibiotics unnecessarily to treat viral infections. This has caused a rise in the increase of antibiotic--resistant bacterial strains, some of which are quite deadly. The only time a physician should administer antibiotics to treat a viral infection is to protect the patient from a secondary infection (usually from a bacterial infection)!

WW treatment systems cannot deal (is not designed to deal) with viruses, many types of spores, as well as with some antibiotics, and some organic and inorganic molecules.

ebsi

[WAMBA]

WAMBA,

Viruses do not react to antibiotics. If you have the flu, all of the antibiotics in the world will not "cure" it. :jeffd: Physicians often administer antibiotics unnecessarily to treat viral infections. This has caused a rise in the increase of antibiotic--resistant bacterial strains, some of which are quite deadly. The only time a physician should administer antibiotics to treat a viral infection is to protect the patient from a secondary infection (usually from a bacterial infection)!

ebsi

duh! i'm an idiot...i knew that antibiotics were only for bacterial infections but for some reason discussing it from the waste perspective i didn't even think of that...

that very thing actually happened to me: i kept getting really bad sore throats but the strep tests would come back negative. finally the doctor decided to just try giving me antibiotics (which he said he never usually did) and that ended up making it worse and giving me thrush, a fungal infection. from there, i ended up breaking my arm and needing to have a tube down my throat while they did surgery on it. i woke up and it was so messed up and irritated from the tube that i eventually had to just get my tonsils out. problem solved.
but yeah, i should've known that about antibiotics cause i learned it firsthand!

[ebsi2001]

...i knew that antibiotics were only for bacterial infections but for some reason discussing it from the waste perspective i didn't even think of that...

<SNIP>

...but yeah, i should've known that about antibiotics cause i learned it firsthand!

WAMBA,

It's easy to forget something like that, if you don't work in the field, have had training in that particular area, or if you only have had a "brush" with "actuality." There is, however, no pardon for the elite members of the medical profession. For more than 40 years, there has been a "push," at least in Europe, and perhaps also in the US, that physicians "categorize" and administer the antibiotics they use according to the ailment being treated. This has not been done. As a result, and, also, because many patients do not take the prescribed amount of antibiotics, we now have "rogue pathogens" with multiple resistances, often in hospital settings, that pose a threat the health of the young, the elderly, and those with low resistance to infection. Because of this, there is an ever present "push" to look for new antibiotics, or for modifying and/or creating them, synthetically. Many of these new antibiotics cause big problems in WW treatment facilities, or they pass through them virtually unchanged.

The Selman Waksman Institute at Rutgers was once the "heart" of antibiotic research, but something happened in the lat 60s or in the early 70s, and they lost their "edge" to Japan. In the meantime, I've heard that once again they're actively seeking new antibiotics from soil samples...

ebsi