Archive for May, 2010
South Africa’s Poisoned Water
SOUTH AFRICA BULLETIN from the headquarters of TAU SA in Pretoria
Web: www.tlu.co.za Tel.: + 27 12 804 8031 Fax: + 27 12 804 2014 E-mail: info@tlu.co.za
May 17, 2010
SOUTH AFRICA’S POISONED WATER AND POSSIBLE POLICE ACTION
“Like confetti at a wedding!”
This is the way South African environmentalists describe the government’s Department of Water and Forestry’s ( DWF) plan to stop toxic pollution of the country’s water supply. Now the Deputy President of TAU SA and chairman of the National Water Forum (NWDF) Louis Meintjes is laying a criminal charge with the South African Police against three SA cabinet ministers for violations under the National Water Act.
Persistent warnings over the years by individuals and groups about our polluted rivers and dams, collapsing water infrastructure and dysfunctional sewage works have fallen on deaf ears. Denialism is something of a fetish with the government – say it isn’t so and it will go away!
“It is clear that the ministers in question do not comply with the provisions of the Act, either intentionally or by negligence. Thus we have no choice but to charge them criminally and to demand that the matter be investigated thoroughly and that these perpetrators be prosecuted”, said Mr. Meintjes.
It is axiomatic that you cannot manage what you don’t comprehend! If you don’t understand nuclear physics, or water safety, or municipal accounts, then how can you assume to manage these important elements of South Africa’s daily life? The difference between South Africa and much of the rest of the world is that those in positions of “management” somehow don’t comprehend they are incompetent: those who criticize them are either racists or a “scoring political points”. This is a dangerous attitude for the future of South Africa.
Dr. Sizwe Mkize, a senior official at DWF retorted to those who, at a recent press conference, asked him about South Africa’s water crisis – “I think it’s just hearsay. We’re a dry country but we’re not in a crisis whatsoever. You have water coming out of the taps in your house, don’t you?” Mr. Meintjes is supplying full documentation to support the criminal charges, and to prove that South Africa’s poisoned water supply is not just “hearsay”.
THE MINING INDUSTRY
It is not such a quantum mental leap to query why the mining industry has played a none-too-small role in polluting South Africa’s water and, by extension, its ground. The “evaporation of moral fibre” which permeates the Department of Minerals and Resources (DMR) is how one journalist (Citizen 21 April, 2010) has described the behaviour of this department: their cavalier and negligent attitude in granting mining permits willy nilly is adding to the worsening water pollution. (Does anything change hands during this process?)
A few years ago, mining people in Kimberley described how DMR officials popped into their offices at the weekend to see who was applying for what licences. These were crudely copied, and the rest is history, says The Citizen.
It seems the mining industry has taken on the couldn’t-care-less, everyman-for-himself approach to life that permeates virtually the whole of the government’s civil service.
Canada’s Fraser Institute has just ranked South Africa 61 out of 72 mining jurisdictions across the world. Of ten African nations in the survey, we were only ahead of the “chaotic” Democratic Republic of Congo and “drain-piped” Zimbabwe, according to the Citizen..
POLLUTION
South Africa’s water is in such a fragile state that the situation is ready to shift into national disaster mode. The quality of South Africa’s water is deteriorating not only because of pollution but as a result of acid mine drainage (AMD) from the mining industry. Globally, AMD has been cited as posing environmental risks second only to climate change.
This acid mine water refers to a deadly cocktail of toxic chemicals, including heavy metals and radioactive uranium, as well as high levels of sulphates, leaking from disused mine workings into dolomitic areas underground, infiltrating ground water and overflowing to the surface water sources. This acid drainage lowers water quality, poisons food crops and poses several health risks, including increased rates of cancer, decreased brain function and skin lesions.
Its impacts are manifesting on the flooded Western Basin, near Randfontein and Krugersdorp. Here, millions of litres of acid drainage have been gushing for more than two months into the already poisoned Tweelopies Spruit, passing through the Krugersdorp Game Reserve and ultimately reaching important river systems.
Minister of Environmental Affairs Buyelwa Sonjica has announced a R6,9 billion state subsidy to increase the pumping and treatment capacity of Rand Uranium and Mintails’ water treatment plants. The Minister admitted that the drainage was “a ticking time bomb” (How many ticking time bombs are there now in South Africa?). But a week before her visit to the area, she told Parliament that drinking and farming water in the area was not affected by pollution!
This is not a new catastrophe! Acid drainage started bubbling to the surface in 2002. The government ordered mining groups DRD Gold, Rand Uranium and Mintails to halt the surface flow of this acidic water by treating it before pumping it into nearby streams. Now only Rand Uranium treats its water. Even the Cradle of Humankind in nearby Sterkfontein is affected! In 2002, the same government statements were made about the “unacceptability” of the situation, but nothing has happened.
South Africa’s mining industry is becoming less and less competitive. Rand Uranium is spending R2,5 million a month treating its water. Environmentalists are worried that the acid is eating away at the underground dolomite, and that it is consistently filtering into aquifers used for drinking and irrigation.
It is not only in the West Rand that the danger lurks. Experts have warned that in less than three years, acid mine water will begin to flow uncontrollably out of the Central Basin, below Johannesburg, and in 18 months polluted water in that basin will reach critical levels, affecting the structural integrity of the Johannesburg CBD.
SURFACE WATER
“South Africa’s future is limited by surface water availability”, says scientist Mike Whitcutt. “But we have abundant groundwater so it is crazy to use this reserve as a sump for pollutants.”
The government is planning to meet with mining groups to discuss the long-term treatment of their waste water. We shouldn’t hold our breath that these “discussions” will come to anything any time soon. To assist in saving the country’s water, the mining industry should take the bull by the horns and become self-regulatory with regard to ethical practice. Waiting for the government to do something is like waiting for a lottery win!
Mining in South Africa has been generally extremely profitable. “Former mine owners made billions and depleted resources” says Mariette Liefferink of the Federation for a Sustainable Environment. “They left us with aquifers polluted with acid drainage. This is most immoral.” Her organization is taking various government departments to court over the acid drainage crisis “which the government has been warned about since 1996”, she says.
Who is most directly affected by mining’s poisonous waste water? Food security is in serious danger, say experts. Scores of farmers in the Free State and Mpumalanga complain that the first they hear of mining applications approved by DMR is when representatives of mining companies arrive on their farms to start drilling.
How many people realized the disastrous consequences of the state’s legislation to take over all mineral rights in the country? Parts of a maize farm in Mpumalanga are unusable because of the salts and metals emanating from an unsealed water pollution control dam on a neighbouring farm now being mined by a colliery. In the Bothaville and Kroonstad areas, up to 25 notices have been served on farmers over the past 18 months informing them that mining companies have been granted rights to prospect on their land. And once a notice has been served, there is nothing more the farmer can do.
Mpumalanga and the Free State account for over half of the country’s grain production. Together with the North West, 80% of the country’s grain is grown. Mpumalanga’s lucrative fruit and vegetable export market is now threatened – if the quality of the water is lowered, the European Union will reject the produce. One hundred and four mines in the country are being operated without water licences, this in a country where mineral rights are more valued by the government it seems than food production. Only 20% of South Africa’s agricultural land is highly productive and arable.
We are indeed sitting on a time bomb, but who will defuse it?
(See National Water Forum’s website www.nwf.za.net )
Greg’s Personal Opinion: As many of you know, I was born and raised in South Africa. I love the majestic beauty of that country and it is heart-wrenching to think that it is being mismanaged into oblivion. A sad day for South Africa and the continent at large.
President’s panel on cancer recommends drinking water filters
The President’s Cancer Panel released their report on reducing environmental cancer risks last week. This work is the culmination of extensive study, peer-reviewed data, conferences, and meetings. I read this report with great interest, since I lost a parent to cancer and want to be sure to protect myself, my family, and others from known and suspected carcinogens.
Some interesting quotes relating to cancer and water quality (The page references refer to the .pdf page number, not the numbered pages in the report):
“The Panel urges you most strongly to use the power of your office to remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water, and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.” – Page 2
“Many known or suspected carcinogens first identified through studies of industrial and agricultural occupational exposures have since found their way into soil, air, water, and numerous consumer products.” – Page 11
“In addition, pharmaceuticals have become a considerable source of environmental contamination. Drugs of all types enter the water supply when they are excreted or improperly disposed of; the health impact of long-term exposure to varying mixtures of these compounds is unknown.” – Page 13
“Individuals and families have many opportunities to reduce or eliminate chemical exposures. For example:
Family exposure to numerous occupational chemicals can be reduced by removing shoes before entering the home and washing work clothes separately from the other family laundry.
Filtering home tap or well water can decrease exposure to numerous known or suspected carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Unless the home water source is known to be contaminated, it is preferable to use filtered tap water instead of commercially bottled water.” – Page 27
“Children are exposed to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and radiation through the air they breathe, the food and water they consume, medications they are given, and the environment in which they live, including their homes, schools, day care centers, and even the motor vehicles in which they ride.25 Pound for pound, children take in more food, water, air, and other environmental substances than adults. Children also can be exposed to toxins in utero via placental transfer and/or after birth via breast milk. Tests of umbilical cord blood26 found traces of nearly 300 pollutants in newborns’ bodies, such as chemicals used in fast-food packaging, flame retardants present in household dust, and pesticides.” – Page 39
“The number and prevalence of known or suspected carcinogens is growing. Many environmental contaminants are manufactured synthetic chemicals; waste and by-products of industrial processes; chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals used in farming and for landscaping; chemicals used in other commercial activities; combustion by-products of petroleum-powered engines; water disinfection/chlorination by-products; and both man-made and natural sources of radiation.” – Page 50
“By contrast, in 1976 the EU prohibited the use of approximately 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics.108 Atrazine, a widely used herbicide believed to have endocrine-disrupting and possible carcinogenic properties, was banned by the EU in October 2003 because of its ubiquitous and unpreventable water contamination.109 The same month, the EPA approved the continued use of atrazine in the U.S. Most recently, the EU banned dichloromethane, an ingredient commonly used in paint strippers that has been classified an EU Category 3 carcinogen (possibly carcinogenic to humans).” – Page 56
“Elemental mercury occurs naturally and also is released into the air through industrial pollution, contaminating food and water sources. It is a suspected carcinogen for brain and central nervous system (CNS) cancers. U.S. coal-fired power plants emit more than 48 tons of mercury into the air each year.163″ – Page 70
“We use 80 million pounds [of atrazine] annually in the United States. It’s the number-one pesticide contaminant of ground water, surface water, and drinking water. It’s used in more than 80 countries but it’s now outlawed in all of Europe or, as the company likes to say, has been denied regulatory approval. The main point here is that here’s a compound that we use 80 million pounds of, and it’s illegal in the home country of the company that makes it.” – Page 80
“Ingesting contaminated drinking water is the primary route of human exposure to nitrate from nitrogen fertilizers.239 Nitrates in drinking water are important because the most likely known mechanism for human cancer related to nitrate is the body’s formation of N-nitroso compounds (NOC), which have been shown to cause tumors at multiple organ sites in every animal species tested, including neurological system cancers following transplacental exposure.” – Page 82
“In humans, nitrosamines and NOCs are suspected brain and CNS carcinogens. In addition, a cohort study of older women in Iowa241 found that those whose drinking water had higher long-term average nitrate levels had an increased risk of bladder and ovarian cancers.” – Page 82
“With greater production of corn for fuel, nitrate levels in drinking water are likely to continue their upward trend.” – Page 82
“Phosphate fertilizers also accelerate the leaching of arsenic from soils into groundwater.249″ – Page 83
“Assessing health hazards due to drinking water contamination is difficult, since it typically is challenging to estimate the levels and timing of exposures and the specific chemicals involved. It also can be difficult to define exposed populations clearly and select the most appropriate disease endpoints or intermediate biologic markers for study. Further, it often is not possible to identify the cause of observed health effects when there are multiple exposures or to link specific health effects with individual chemicals that occur in mixtures.
Public water filtration and treatment plants remove some contaminants, but current technologies cannot remove them all.” – Page 87
“EPA typically sets a level that they would call safe, which is as close to zero risk as they can get, and then they say, well, we can’t do that because that costs money, so let’s come up with another number that allows a certain amount of risk as a trade-off for cleaning up the water… I think our public policies need to be revisited because we’re trading disease for costs probably unnecessarily.” – Page 88
“Many bottled water users assume that it is cleaner than tap water. Bottled water is regulated by the FDA, and while standards for lead content are more stringent than Federal public water standards, other quality
2008–2009 ANNUAL REPORT | PRESIDENT’S CANCER PANEL 55
standards are the same as Federal limits for public supplies. Bottlers, however, are not required to disclose either the content or the source of their water, as is the case for public supplies. Some bottled water is simply drawn from municipal supplies and receives no additional filtration or other treatment.” – Page 88
“Wherever you chlorinate water, you have chlorination by-products… there is strong evidence that disinfection by-products are carcinogenic for bladder cancer.” – Page 89
“Disinfection of public water supplies has dramatically reduced the incidence of waterborne illnesses and related mortality in the United States, with unquestionable public health benefit. However, chemical by-products are formed when disinfectants such as chlorine react with organic matter, and long-term exposure to these chemicals may increase cancer risk.
Hundreds of disinfection by-products have been identified; the most common of these are trihalomethanes (THMs, including chloroform, bromoform, and others) and haloacetic acid. Only a small percentage of identified DBPs have been tested for carcinogenicity. Some rodent studies have been positive for cancer, and some DBP components have shown mutagenic effects in in vitro testing, suggesting carcinogenicity.267″ – Page 89
“People are exposed to DBPs through consumption and through inhalation and absorption through the skin during bathing, showering, and swimming in chlorinated pools.267 Relatively little research has been done on DBPs and cancer; the strongest data show increased bladder cancer risk with long-term (up to 40 years) exposure to DBPs, particularly among men.270 In addition, several metabolic pathways and key genes have been identified that may increase bladder cancer risk among individuals with common variants in these genetic factors. Other very limited research suggests possible DBP associations with colon and rectal cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and glioma.271,272 One speaker underscored the need for further research on DBPs and cancer, noting that exposure assessments should account for at least 35 years of exposure prior to a cancer diagnosis. DBPs represent a situation in which observed relative risks are modest, but because of the high numbers of people exposed, such risks may translate into potentially significant public health problems.” – Page 90
“Pharmaceuticals have become a significant water pollutant nationwide. Water filtration plants generally are unable to remove dissolved medications that enter water systems after being excreted or poured into household drains or toilets.” – Page 108
“Among the human medications found in water supplies are antidepressants, medications for high blood pressure and diabetes, anticonvulsants, steroid medications, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy medications, codeine, non-prescription pain relievers, chemotherapy drugs, heart medications, and antibiotics.357,358″ – Page 109
“The Federal government has not established limits on the amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water and does not require water testing to determine the amounts present.” – Page 109
“Ecologic, cohort, and case-control studies of highly exposed populations have linked inorganic arsenic in drinking water with skin, lung, bladder, and kidney cancer in both sexes and with prostate cancer in men.267″ – Page 127
America has some of the cleanest, safest, and cheapest municipal water in the world. With an average of less than 2% of all municipal water being used for human consumption it is unfeasible and ridiculously expensive to try to treat ALL municipal water to human consumption standards. The most logical option is to enable homeowners to use Point of Entry (POE) and Point of Use (POU) water treatment technologies to cost-effectively improve their water to the standard that they deserve.