The Devil's Cookroom
Common SenseJohn Maxwell
Sunday, June 03, 2007
First of all, an apology.
In my column two weeks ago - about the possible link between teenage dysfunction and bauxite/alumina poisoning - I committed an egregious error. I said "The water supplies of Kingston and most of southern Jamaica are already contaminated by bauxite wastes."
I had intended to say that the water supplies of Kingston and most of southern Jamaica are threatened by bauxite and other industrial wastes, including dunder and that some of them are already contaminated. I blame no one but myself for the error, which happened when I was editing what I had written.
In a reply published last week, entitled 'Not True, Mr Maxwell' the head of the Water Resources Authority, Mr Basil Fernandez, attempts to drop a nuclear bomb on what I said. Fair enough. But he goes a little too far.
Mr Fernandez has published a paper - Contamination of water resources by the Bauxite/Alumina operations in Jamaica which says the following:
"Monitoring of ground water around the four processing plants in the island has indicated contamination of water resources. Approximately 200 million cubic metres (MCM) of groundwater have been contaminated and another 200 MCM is at risk of contamination. The red mud ponds are in the direct path of ground water flow and pose a serious threat to ground water reservoirs and consequently the ground water reserves of the island. Relocation of the ponds would not remove the threat, therefore other methods of disposal that would not contaminate water resources had to be found."
Mr Fernandez, in his attempt to blow me off the map last week, goes on to give detailed reports on the various water supplies which are not polluted, or at least not much. "While the wells at Bog Walk and the Tulloch Springs are located in the Upper Rio Cobre sub-basin where the Windalco Ewarton Plant and mud stacking and drying operations are located, no contamination from that plant and disposal system has been detected at these sources. None of the other sources is located in the flow part of any bauxite/alumina operations and red mud storage facilities."
He appears to choose his words very carefully: ". no contamination from that plant and disposal system has been detected" (my bold face).
I would like to hear what he has to say about the Weatherly Spring, which is contaminated by the Red Mud Lake at Mount Rosser. I confess I do not know whether this spring contributes to the water supplies that are eventually taken to Kingston from the Tulloch supply, but it appears to be possible. When he says "None of the other sources is located in the flow part of any bauxite/alumina operations and red mud storage facilities" he appears to admit that the Tulloch Springs, et al sources are in the flow path of the red mud operations, whether of Mount Rosser or the new dry stacking establishment is not clear.
The Golding River, which runs through the Cockpit Country, and is a source of water for many people.
But the threat is clear.
The figures Mr Fernandez gives for the other plants reveal that in no case is "contamination" present in any of the water supplies mentioned. That is if we ignore his statement that:
"Drilling and monthly sampling of several deep monitoring boreholes across the Manchester Highlands and into Porus have detected low-level contamination of groundwater (25 mg/l sodium maximum) which has not impacted on any existing water supply system. The Porus wells, which are operated by the NWC, report low sodium concentration of <15 mg/l - representing background (uncontaminated) quality."
The real question about all these figures is - what level of alkalinity represents 'contamination'? For Mr Fernandez and other water engineers, 'contamination' is probably a numerical threshold, whereas for ordinary people like me contamination is contamination, whether in trace amounts or greater.
I personally would welcome Mr Fernandez and the Water Resources Authority clearing up this matter for us.
I will remind you of what I wrote in December, which would have given Mr Fernandez a fairly accurate idea of my mindset:
"I believe that bauxite mining is an unmitigated disaster and I believe that before we are reduced to the status of Nauru we should demand answers from the Government and the bauxite companies and from independent experts, to measure the cost and benefits to Jamaica of what I consider a depraved and uncivilised undertaking.
"To summarise - Bauxite mining:
. Is destroying social cohesion and community, disrupting families and pushing our youth towards criminality;
. Is destroying the landscape of Jamaica, after our people - our major asset;
. Is sterilising our chances of real agricultural development by removing land from production;
. Is a major contributor (fuel consumption) to our negative balance of payments;
. Is a major factor (because of its consumption of water) in present and future water shortages;
. Is creating enormous reservoirs of toxic material which pollutes and diminishes our water supply and will cost more to sanitise than it costs to process;
. Is the major contributor to desertification and deforestation in Jamaica;
. Will eventually destroy the tourism industry by destroying the reefs which protect the beaches."
That was written in December and published in the Sunday Observer of December 17 under the title 'A Mess of Pottage'.
I would now add that bauxite might also be contributing to our national insanity.
Mr Fernandez himself has written articles published on the Web, in which he points out the disadvantages of bauxite processing. Despite the new, dry-stacking operations, Mr Fernandez says, there are serious disadvantages:
In an article entitled 'Recycling of Industrial Effluent in Jamaica' Mr Fernandez reports:
"Disadvantages"
. There is an increased risk of pollution of surface water resources, due to the large size of the holding ponds and the possibility of spillages.
. Technical problems within the plants may be experienced, reducing the level of production and affecting the volume of recycled effluent; hence, storage volumes can increase to the point where overflows occur, affecting the environment.
. The quality of effluent may vary significantly, affecting the degree of treatment provided by this technology and thus, potentially, the level of production at the plants.
. The technology is capital-intensive, not labour-intensive, and provides few spin-offs for nearby communities where unemployment may be high.
. As a result of the land-intensive nature of this technology, its implementation may result in the relocation of residents, disrupting their lives and causing great inconvenience; for farmers and other small businesspeople, a new location may be less suitable and/or create the need to seek other employment.
. Agricultural land may be lost in some cases, decreasing food production."
There is the ever present danger of floods, the natural disaster most prevalent in Jamaica.
Common SenseJohn Maxwell
Sunday, June 03, 2007
First of all, an apology.
In my column two weeks ago - about the possible link between teenage dysfunction and bauxite/alumina poisoning - I committed an egregious error. I said "The water supplies of Kingston and most of southern Jamaica are already contaminated by bauxite wastes."
I had intended to say that the water supplies of Kingston and most of southern Jamaica are threatened by bauxite and other industrial wastes, including dunder and that some of them are already contaminated. I blame no one but myself for the error, which happened when I was editing what I had written.
In a reply published last week, entitled 'Not True, Mr Maxwell' the head of the Water Resources Authority, Mr Basil Fernandez, attempts to drop a nuclear bomb on what I said. Fair enough. But he goes a little too far.
Mr Fernandez has published a paper - Contamination of water resources by the Bauxite/Alumina operations in Jamaica which says the following:
"Monitoring of ground water around the four processing plants in the island has indicated contamination of water resources. Approximately 200 million cubic metres (MCM) of groundwater have been contaminated and another 200 MCM is at risk of contamination. The red mud ponds are in the direct path of ground water flow and pose a serious threat to ground water reservoirs and consequently the ground water reserves of the island. Relocation of the ponds would not remove the threat, therefore other methods of disposal that would not contaminate water resources had to be found."
Mr Fernandez, in his attempt to blow me off the map last week, goes on to give detailed reports on the various water supplies which are not polluted, or at least not much. "While the wells at Bog Walk and the Tulloch Springs are located in the Upper Rio Cobre sub-basin where the Windalco Ewarton Plant and mud stacking and drying operations are located, no contamination from that plant and disposal system has been detected at these sources. None of the other sources is located in the flow part of any bauxite/alumina operations and red mud storage facilities."
He appears to choose his words very carefully: ". no contamination from that plant and disposal system has been detected" (my bold face).
I would like to hear what he has to say about the Weatherly Spring, which is contaminated by the Red Mud Lake at Mount Rosser. I confess I do not know whether this spring contributes to the water supplies that are eventually taken to Kingston from the Tulloch supply, but it appears to be possible. When he says "None of the other sources is located in the flow part of any bauxite/alumina operations and red mud storage facilities" he appears to admit that the Tulloch Springs, et al sources are in the flow path of the red mud operations, whether of Mount Rosser or the new dry stacking establishment is not clear.
The Golding River, which runs through the Cockpit Country, and is a source of water for many people.
But the threat is clear.
The figures Mr Fernandez gives for the other plants reveal that in no case is "contamination" present in any of the water supplies mentioned. That is if we ignore his statement that:
"Drilling and monthly sampling of several deep monitoring boreholes across the Manchester Highlands and into Porus have detected low-level contamination of groundwater (25 mg/l sodium maximum) which has not impacted on any existing water supply system. The Porus wells, which are operated by the NWC, report low sodium concentration of <15 mg/l - representing background (uncontaminated) quality."
The real question about all these figures is - what level of alkalinity represents 'contamination'? For Mr Fernandez and other water engineers, 'contamination' is probably a numerical threshold, whereas for ordinary people like me contamination is contamination, whether in trace amounts or greater.
I personally would welcome Mr Fernandez and the Water Resources Authority clearing up this matter for us.
I will remind you of what I wrote in December, which would have given Mr Fernandez a fairly accurate idea of my mindset:
"I believe that bauxite mining is an unmitigated disaster and I believe that before we are reduced to the status of Nauru we should demand answers from the Government and the bauxite companies and from independent experts, to measure the cost and benefits to Jamaica of what I consider a depraved and uncivilised undertaking.
"To summarise - Bauxite mining:
. Is destroying social cohesion and community, disrupting families and pushing our youth towards criminality;
. Is destroying the landscape of Jamaica, after our people - our major asset;
. Is sterilising our chances of real agricultural development by removing land from production;
. Is a major contributor (fuel consumption) to our negative balance of payments;
. Is a major factor (because of its consumption of water) in present and future water shortages;
. Is creating enormous reservoirs of toxic material which pollutes and diminishes our water supply and will cost more to sanitise than it costs to process;
. Is the major contributor to desertification and deforestation in Jamaica;
. Will eventually destroy the tourism industry by destroying the reefs which protect the beaches."
That was written in December and published in the Sunday Observer of December 17 under the title 'A Mess of Pottage'.
I would now add that bauxite might also be contributing to our national insanity.
Mr Fernandez himself has written articles published on the Web, in which he points out the disadvantages of bauxite processing. Despite the new, dry-stacking operations, Mr Fernandez says, there are serious disadvantages:
In an article entitled 'Recycling of Industrial Effluent in Jamaica' Mr Fernandez reports:
"Disadvantages"
. There is an increased risk of pollution of surface water resources, due to the large size of the holding ponds and the possibility of spillages.
. Technical problems within the plants may be experienced, reducing the level of production and affecting the volume of recycled effluent; hence, storage volumes can increase to the point where overflows occur, affecting the environment.
. The quality of effluent may vary significantly, affecting the degree of treatment provided by this technology and thus, potentially, the level of production at the plants.
. The technology is capital-intensive, not labour-intensive, and provides few spin-offs for nearby communities where unemployment may be high.
. As a result of the land-intensive nature of this technology, its implementation may result in the relocation of residents, disrupting their lives and causing great inconvenience; for farmers and other small businesspeople, a new location may be less suitable and/or create the need to seek other employment.
. Agricultural land may be lost in some cases, decreasing food production."
There is the ever present danger of floods, the natural disaster most prevalent in Jamaica.
Comment