Tag: water

lead in the blood of Flint’s children

The crisis in Flint started in 2014 when Gov. Rick Snyder’s hand-picked and unelected city manager decided to save money by switching Flint’s water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River. Problems with the water were immediately apparent but state officials did not take residents’ complaints seriously until testing last fall showed elevated levels of lead in the blood of Flint’s children.

Gov. Snyder has finally, after 20 months, declared a state of emergency and is scrambling to do damage control and deflect blame.2 President Obama declared a federal emergency in Flint as well. But as chief executive of the state of Michigan, with an aggressive agenda of cost-cutting and austerity practices, responsibility ultimately rests with Gov. Snyder.

The Justice Department has said they will join the EPA in investigating the contamination of Flint’s water.3 We need to make sure there is a transparent and fair investigation that reaches all the way to Gov. Snyder, and holds him accountable for his role in creating and perpetuating this crisis.

Tell the Justice Department: Deliver justice for Flint, Michigan. Click here to sign the petition.

Before the water source switch, anti-corrosives were added to the Lake Huron water to help protect aging pipes. But when the switch was made, officials did not add anti-corrosives to the Flint River water. It would have cost $100 a day to do so. The change in water quality was immediately apparent:

Residents rapidly voiced complaints about the smell, taste and rusty appearance of the water. They also raised health concerns including rashes, hair loss and mood changes. Even General Motors stopped using the Flint water, “saying it was rusting its parts.”4

The high levels of salt in the Flint River were leaching lead out of Flint’s aging pipes. In the face of an E. coli advisory, chlorine was added to the water, which only increased the corrosion. When the chlorine failed to fix the bacteria problem, residents were urged to boil their drinking water. But boiling increases concentrations of lead, leading to higher exposures.5

Repeated complaints were ignored. As of February 2015, officials were still telling the people of Flint that their water was safe.6 More than six months before Snyder declared a state of emergency, one of his top aides warned that the state wasn’t taking resident complaints seriously enough.7 There are reports that state officials knew last year that the water was poisoned, but didn’t say a word.8

We need to demand immediate steps to fix Flint’s public health crisis. But sadly, Flint is not alone in dealing with crumbling infrastructure and right-wing leaders who enact slash-and-burn budget policies. If we don’t demand justice for Flint, we’ll be seeing the same story emerge in cities across America.

Tell the Justice Department: Deliver justice for Flint, Michigan. Click the link below to sign the petition:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/Flint_Snyder_la

Thank you for speaking out,

Heidi Hess, Senior Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Add your name:

Sign the petition ►

References:

  1. Mitch Smith, “Flint Wants Safe Water, and Someone to Answer for Its Crisis,” New York Times, January 9, 2016.
  2. David Graham, “What Did the Governor Know About Flint’s Water, and When Did He Know It?” The Atlantic, January 9, 2016.
  3. Arthur Delaney, “Justice Department Investigating Toxic Tap Water In Flint,” Huffington Post, January 5, 2016.
  4. Judy Stone, “What You Need To Know About Lead Poisoning – Flint Edition,” Forbes, January 9, 2016.
  5. Ibid.
  6. David Graham, “What Did the Governor Know About Flint’s Water, and When Did He Know It?” The Atlantic, January 9, 2016.
  7. Stephanie Gosk et. al., “Internal Email: Michigan ‘Blowing Off’ Flint Over Lead in Water,” NBC News, January 6, 2016.
  8. Ben Mathis-Lilley, “Michigan Knew Last Year That Flint’s Water Might Be Poisoned But Decided Not to Tell Anyone,” Slate.com, January 11, 2016.

Solar water disinfection

Water can be disinfected and in this way made drinkable using the rays of the sun. “Solar water disinfection” – SODIS for short – thus offers a solution for preventing diarrhoea, one of the most common causes of death among people in developing countries.

Clean drinking water in 6 hours

The SODIS method is ideal for treating water for drinking in developing countries. All it requires is sunlight and PET bottles. How does it work? Clear PET bottles are filled with the water and set out in the sun for 6 hours. The UV-A rays in sunlight kill germs such as viruses, bacteria and parasites (giardia and cryptosporidia). The method also works when air and water temperatures are low.

People can use the SODIS method to treat their drinking water themselves. The method is very simple and its application is safe. It is particularly suitable for treating relatively small quantities of drinking water.

Research

Many scientific studies confirmed the effectiveness of the SODIS method. It kills germs in water very efficiently. The method has even been shown to improve the health of the population. Research into training strategies gave insight about which communication methods are most suitable. It has also been proven that the use of PET bottles in the SODIS method is harmless.

Solar water disinfection is a type of portable water purification that uses solar energy to make biologically-contaminated (e.g. bacteria, viruses, protozoa and worms) water safe to drink. Water contaminated with non-biological agents such as toxic chemicals or heavy metals require additional steps to make the water safe to drink.

There are three primary subsets of solar water disinfection:

  1. Electric. Solar disinfection using the effects of electricity generated by photovoltaic panels (solar PV).
  2. Heat. Solar thermal water disinfection.
  3. UV. Solar ultraviolet water disinfection.

Solar disinfection using the effects of electricity generated by photovoltaics typically uses an electric current to deliver electrolytic processes which disinfect water, for example by generating oxidative free radicals which kill pathogens by damaging their chemical structure. A second approach uses stored solar electricity from a battery, and operates at night or at low light levels to power an ultraviolet lamp to perform secondary solar ultraviolet water disinfection.

Solar thermal water disinfection uses heat from the sun to heat water to 70-100 °C for a short period of time. A number of approaches exist here. Solar heat collectors can have lenses in front of them, or use reflectors. They may also use varying levels of insulation or glazing. In addition, some solar thermal water disinfection processes are batch-based, while others (through-flow solar thermal disinfection) operate almost continuously while the sun shines. Water heated to temperatures below 100 °C is generally referred to as Pasteurized water.

High energy ultraviolet radiation from the sun can also be used to kill pathogens in water. The SODIS method uses a combination of UV light and increased temperature (solar thermal) for disinfecting water using only sunlight and plastic PET bottles. SODIS is a free and effective method for decentralized water treatment, usually applied at the household level and is recommended by the World Health Organization as a viable method for household water treatment and safe storage.[1] SODIS is already applied in numerous developing countries. Educational pamphlets on the method are available in many languages,[2] each equivalent to the English-language version.[3]

LifeStraw personal water filter

Published on Jan 7, 2014
Krik of Black Owl Outdoors shows you the LifeStraw personal water filter. Light, compact and inexpensive; the LifeStraw is perfect for camping, hiking, and backpacking.

Published on Jun 5, 2013
See the LIFESAVER bottle in action with Michael Pritchard, drinking directly from the river on the move!

http://www.lifesaversystems.com/

Gravity-Driven Membrane (GDM) technology

Inadequate access to microbiologically safe drinking water continuously threatens the health and well-being of more than a billion people, primarily in developing countries. In many areas worldwide the central water infrastructure is not available at all, or not reliable, leading to unsafe water at the tap. In such cases, decentralized water treatment can be used.

Ultrafiltration is an effective technology to treat water and in principle can be applied on a decentralized scale. Most ultrafiltration membranes have pores which are smaller than the size of bacteria and viruses. Thus, water filtered through these membranes is microbiologically safe.

During dead-end ultrafiltrtion all macro- and microorganisms, particles and colloids accumulate on the membrne surface and a fouling layer is formed. Backflushing or chemical cleaning are usually used during conventional ultrafiltration to remove fouling layer. This prevents the membrane from clogging, which is expected to occur during filtration on a long term. However, backflushing or cleaning results in complex and maintenance-intensive systems, which are difficult to operate on a long term in developing countries.

Different foods require radically different amounts of water

Different foods require radically different amounts of water. To grow a kilogram of wheat requires around 1,000 litres. But it takes as much as 15,000 litres of water to produce a kilo of beef. The meaty diet of Americans and Europeans requires around 5,000 litres of water a day to produce. The vegetarian diets of Africa and Asia use about 2,000 litres a day (for comparison, Westerners use just 100-250 litres a day in drinking and washing).

So the shift from vegetarian diets to meaty ones—which contributed to the food-price rise of 2007-08—has big implications for water, too. In 1985 Chinese people ate, on average, 20kg of meat; this year, they will eat around 50kg. This difference translates into 390km3 (1km3 is 1 trillion litres) of water—almost as much as total water use in Europe.

The shift of diet will be impossible to reverse since it is a product of rising wealth and urbanisation. In general, “water intensity” in food increases fastest as people begin to climb out of poverty, because that is when they start eating more meat. So if living standards in the poorest countries start to rise again, water use is likely to soar. Moreover, almost all the 2 billion people who will be added to the world’s population between now and 2030 are going to be third-world city dwellers—and city people use more water than rural folk.

The environmental impact of meat production varies because of the wide variety of agricultural practices employed around the world. All agriculture practices have been found to have a variety of effects on the environment. Some of the environmental effects that have been associated with meat production are pollution through fossil fuel usage, and water and land consumption. Meat is obtained through a variety of methods, including organic farming, free range farming, intensive livestock production, subsistence agriculture, hunting and fishing. As part of the conclusion to one of the largest international assessments of animal agriculture ever undertaken, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations said:

The livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as a whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gasses and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.

—Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock’s Long Shadow