deadly water: the lessons of walkerton - contents...deadly water: the lessons of walkerton contents...

Deadly Water: The Lessons of Walkerton

Contents

Introduction

"Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink"

Time Is of the Essence

The Basic Facts of E.coli

A Tragic Flaw?

Other Dangers Inherent in Poor Water Quality

Discussion, Research and Essay Questions

Index

Contents

Safe drinking water is a prime resource for all humans and something we in Canada may have taken for granted. The tragedy that occurred in the town of Walkerton, where several people died and many more were made very sick by the presence of E. coli bacteria in the municipal water supply, is not only an important and ongoing news story but is also a case study for resource management at the most fundamental level, in the local municipality. This is a story that raises issues of public accountability, political decisions and policies, public trust and confidence, and the possibility of environmental threats that directly affect us in our homes. As an illustration of the need to assure and preserve clean and safe drinking water, Walkerton has unfortunately become symbolic of a universal issue and not just an isolated and tragic incident.

Contents Introduction "Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink" Time Is of the Essence The Basic Facts of E.Coli A Tragic Flaw? Other Dangers Inherent in Poor Water Quality Discussion, Research and Essay Question Index

http://newsinreview.cbclearning.ca/2000/09/



mailto:[email protected]

http://newsinreview.cbclearning.ca/

http://cbclearning.ca/

Comprehensive News in Review Study ModulesUsing both the print and non-print material from various issues of News in Review, teachers and students can create comprehensive, thematic modules that are excellent for research purposes, independent assignments, and small group study. We recommend the stories indicated below for the universal issues they represent and for the archival and historic material they contain.

"The Clean Air Act," December 1990 "Environmental Cleanups: Who Pays?" Oct. 1998 "Sour Gas: Alberta Stand-off," September 1999

Other Related Videos Available from CBC LearningDoes Your Resource Collection Include These CBC Videos?

Water: To The Last Drop Howe Sound: Poisoned Waters Canada's Water Supply (series) Watershed


Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

Introduction

In May 2000 Canadians were shocked by the deaths of at least six people and at least 2000 more who became ill in Walkerton, Ontario, as a result of E.coli contamination of the local water system. Every day countless deaths are reported in the news; the constant flow of stories of death and disaster is such that usually we can distance ourselves from the events. But the deaths of those six people in small-town Ontario had a profound impact on most Canadians. The realization that what happened in Walkerton could happen anywhere in Canada gave the events a significant immediacy and personal relevance. In a wealthy country endowed with bountiful natural resources, the possibility of drinking water being unsafe seems unthinkable. The outbreak in developing countries of dreadful diseases, such as cholera, that kill thousands of people as a result of polluted water, are generally seen as events happening to anonymous people in distant lands. We might feel pity for the sufferers, but the story seems far away because we can't imagine a situation where our own water supply � our most basic resource � could actually kill us. Walkerton brought this fear home to all Canadians. Water is one of the most fundamental human needs. We can survive weeks without food, but with no water we would be lucky to last a week. In Canada we have always taken fresh drinking water for granted, assuming an endless supply. But fresh drinking water is not as abundant as we might think. Only one per cent of the world's water is drinkable, and although Canada possesses 10 per cent of that water it is constantly being exposed to many forms of pollutants, not just E.coli bacteria. According to water ecologist David Schindler, climate change, acid rain, human and animal waste, ultraviolet radiation, airborne toxins, and biological invaders will endanger all our water supplies within 50 years. The story of Walkerton has also brought to the public's attention the crucial issue of resource management. This News in Review story is therefore a case study not only of the specific and tragic events that led to water contamination in Walkerton, but in a more general context, is also a warning to monitor carefully this essential resource and to examine the importance of long-term thinking in its protection and preservation. Walkerton has been referred to as a tragedy. In the classical and dramatic sense, tragedy implies a great flaw in a character, which results in that individual's downfall. Was Walkerton a tragedy? Was there one or more human flaws that in turn led to six deaths and many people falling ill? Was the outcome preventable? Who should be held accountable? The Public Utilities Manager who failed to report to the public the presence of E.coli contaminating the drinking water? The provincial government that shifted the responsibility of maintaining water plants and water testing to local municipalities and cut the number of inspectors whose job it is to ensure that water utilities maintain proper standards? The industrial farming that is believed to have been the source of the E.coli contamination? Or was it the fault of all of us who assume we will always have fresh water, while doing little to conserve or protect it? One thing is certain, and that is that the public's faith in the government to protect it from harm has been shaken because providing safe drinking water for its


citizens is one of the most basic functions of government. Walkerton now points to a larger issue, that of public trust, confidence, and accountability. Can we trust our governments to protect us?












Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

"Water, Water Everywhere, Nor Any Drop to Drink"

The above quote from The Ancient Mariner by the English Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge has been used by many media sources to communicate the tragic irony that underscored the events in the community of Walkerton, Ontario. The fear of unsafe drinking water, however, has not only occurred among the people of Walkerton; many Canadians are also now considering the safety of their own water and what their governments are doing to maintain water quality. As a result of the Walkerton tragedy fundamental political, social, and ethical questions have been raised. As you watch this News in Review report, formulate answers to the following principal questions that form the framework of this news event.

Questions of Accountability 1. What do officials suspect is the source of the E.coli bacteria that got into the water supply in Walkerton? 2. Why were town officials being blamed? 3. Why was the Ontario government of Mike Harris criticized? 4. The Ontario Government has promised new laws governing water quality standards. However Dr. Murray McQuigge, Walkerton's Medical Officer of Health, is critical of this new plan. Why? 5. What happened in cities and towns across the country after the Walkerton tragedy was widely reported in the media? 6. Why is this a news story that affects all Canadians? Implications and Ramifications Now, considering the answers below, suggest why these questions are far-reaching. 1. Heavy rainfall washed E.coli-contaminated cow manure into one of the three wells from which Walkerton draws its water. 2. The Walkerton Public Utilities Commission Manager didn't tell anyone about the E.coli contamination until the Medical Officer of Health confronted him with independent laboratory results confirming the contamination. 3. The Mike Harris government was blamed for years of cutbacks to the provincial budget, privatization of government services, and the downloading of costs from the province to local communities, which some believe had a negative impact on the quality of water standards. 4. McQuigge said: "You can't announce something like that and not have adequate staff to do it," suggesting that regulations are ineffective unless you have enough people to put them into practice. 5. They began to test their water, and a good many of them found that there were problems with their own water quality. 6. Some critics say that Canadians have taken clean drinking water for granted for too long. Follow-up Discussion The people of Walkerton want answers to their questions. Having now watched the video, what questions do you think most need to be answered? Why? In small groups, formulate at least three questions. Compare your list with that of


other groups.












Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

Time is of the Essence

In order to come to any conclusions regarding the lessons that Walkerton offers it is necessary to learn what happened and when. In this story timing was especially important; it actually meant the difference between life and death. The following is a brief summary of the events that led to the death of six people, and the devastation of a community. As you study this chronology, think about why the element of time is at the core of this news story.

Early April 2000 A chlorinator, used to purify water, begins to break down at the Walkerton Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This is the local organization that is responsible for keeping the water safe. Since there is no back-up chlorinator the manager orders a new one; however, it will take up to two months to arrive.

April 7 Provincial environment officials receive a fax from the private lab that tests Walkerton's water saying that four of eight tests indicate that water might be contaminated. Three days later the environment office receives further evidence of possible contamination. The office calls Stan Koebal, the manager of the Walkerton PUC, who tells them the water is fine.

April 24 Another round of testing is performed. The results don't indicate any contamination from E.coli. However it is later revealed that the samples were not taken from the well with the damaged chlorinator. Walkerton's water comes from three wells. The well with the poorly working chlorinator was not checked. Once more Koebal tells the environment office that everything is fine.

May 12 There is a severe storm in the area. Flood water, probably contaminated with E.coli from pig and cow manure, gets into the water supply.

May 15 Koebal sends a further batch of samples to be tested, but to another lab.

May 18 The PUC receives a fax from the lab confirming E.coli contamination of Well Seven, the one with the malfunctioning chlorinator.

May 19 The region's Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Murray McQuigge, is informed that the local hospital has had several cases of bloody diarrhea, a sign of E.coli poisoning. Koebal assures McQuigge that the water is safe. The Medical Health Office (MHO) therefore begins to look into other causes for the sickness.

May 20 As many as 40 more people report to hospital with bloody diarrhea. An anonymous caller telephones the Ministry of the Environment's Spills Action Centre claiming that Koebal has received test results indicating contamination of the water supply. Both Chris Johnston from the Ministry, and McQuigge from


the Medical Health Office contact Koebal, who insists that the water is safe.

May 21 With more cases of illness reported, the Medical Health Office officially warns residents not to drink the water. The MHO also takes its own independent water samples, no longer trusting the PUC's reports.

May 23 The MHO's lab confirms that the water is polluted with E.coli bacteria. McQuigge of the MHO confronts Koebal with the test results. Koebal admits to having received a fax on May 18 that showed that the water had E.coli in it. Health officials are also informed that the chlorinator in Well Seven has not worked for some time. By this time six people who have drunk the water and become ill have already, or will soon, die. At least 2000 others will become ill, many seriously.

May 24 McQuigge issues a press release stating that the town officials knew about the problem for nearly a week, and that had they acted on the information sooner, deaths might have been prevented.

Follow-up Questions

1. Find two examples in the story of moments where timing was so important that it determined the outcome of the events. Explain the connection. 2. From what you know at this point, how do you think the deaths of the six people in Walkerton might have been prevented? 3. How did the water become polluted with E.coli in the first place? Why wasn't the water cleaned or purified at the public utilities commission? 4. Time, timing, chance, and circumstances affect all our lives on a daily basis. Suggest how each of these played a role in the Walkerton tragedy. How do they play a role in your own life? While answering these questions, explain carefully the difference between these four words. 5. There are many descriptive and metaphoric expressions in English that use the word and concept of time: "Time heals all wounds," "Time will tell," and "working against time" are some examples. How might each of these be applied to this news story? Can you think of others?


Comprehensive News in Review Study Modules






Using both the print and non-print material from various issues of News in Review, teachers and students can create comprehensive, thematic modules that are excellent for research purposes, independent assignments, and small group study. We recommend the stories indicated below for the universal issues they represent and for the archival and historic material they contain.





Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index


Since Walkerton became the worst case of E.coli poisoning in Canadian history many Canadians are now acutely aware that E.coli can be a killer. This section presents some of the basic vocabulary of the Walkerton tragedy and will help you gain a deeper understanding of the facts and a broader awareness.

What is E.coli? E.coli is short for Escherichia coli. It is a type of bacteria found in the intestines of animals and humans. There are hundreds of different kinds, or strains, of E.coli, some of which are harmful, but most of which are not. The variety that struck Walkerton is known as E.coli 0157:H7. This type produces a powerful toxin, or poison, and can cause severe illness and even death. E.coli 0157:H7 was first identified in 1982 in the United States when 47 people developed severe stomach disorders. The cause of these disorders was traced to ground beef patties that were contaminated with the harmful variety of E.coli. Because E.coli can be caught from eating undercooked contaminated ground beef it has been called the hamburger disease. However, the bacteria can also be caught from consuming unpasteurized milk and apple cider, ham, turkey, roast beef, sandwich meats, raw vegetables, cheese, and of course water.

Once infected, people do not necessarily die. Some people develop mild diarrhea. You may even have had a mild strain of E.coli yourself and never realized it! In more serious cases there is severe diarrhea, which is often bloody, as well as very painful stomach cramps. The most severe cases tend to be with young children and elderly people because their immune systems are not as able to fight the infection. In children the infection causes red blood cells to be destroyed, and the kidneys can fail. Even if a child recovers from such a serious illness they may have permanently damaged kidneys and other serious health problems for the rest of their lives. In an elderly patient E.coli can cause strokes, which may kill. However, in most cases people recover with the help of antibiotics after five to 10 days of treatment.

E.coli and Water Contamination If E.coli comes from hamburger meat, how does it get into water, you may ask? The answer is through human and animal waste. During heavy rains E.coli in the form of animal manure from farms may be washed into creeks, rivers, streams, lakes, or even groundwater (underground sources of water). Human sewage can do the same thing if it comes into contact with the water sources just listed. When this polluted water is used as a source of drinking water and the water is not treated properly, E.coli may end up in the drinking water as it did in Walkerton. The more manure in the area of water sources, the greater the likelihood that water may become contaminated during flooding. This is why factory farming, as it is called, has been blamed for the water contamination at Walkerton. The good news is that by testing water samples we can find out if water is contaminated with E.coli and then treat the water


with chlorine or other substances to destroy the bacteria. The bad news is that the water in Walkerton was not properly treated with chlorine.

Follow-up Questions and Activities 1. Are all types of E.coli bacterial harmful? Explain your answer carefully. 2. When E.coli 0157:H7 was first discovered, what was the source of the contamination? Was it water as in the Walkerton situation? Why is this question so important? 3. What food products can E.coli contamination be found in? What implications does this have for all of us in our daily lives? Consider where, how, and when you buy, prepare, and serve food. Why is proper hygiene far more than the lessons our parents teach us? Why is science a critical area of expertise in terms of the production, supply and delivery, and preparation of food? 4. How does E.coli get into the water supply? Can the water be treated? What sciences and what career fields are directly related to water supply systems? In small groups, make a list of jobs and special fields of knowledge that are directly related to water supplies. Task Forces Form three groups or "task forces" to research and study various aspects of water. Initially, brainstorm thoughts and ideas using the information below and then, using encyclopedias, dictionaries, atlases, and the Internet, prepare an overview presentation for the class.

1. Water: The Source of Life: What is the "continuous hydrologic cycle" of water? What does the Earth's atmosphere have to do with our water? What is the importance of evaporation and water supplies? What is "water yield?" What is "runoff" and in what parts of Canada can this be a serious problem? What do fishing, navigation, recreation, and wildlife habitats have to do with water? Why is Canada's history directly and closely linked to water? What is irrigation and what is its importance to Canadians? Why are most cities and industries in Canada river- and lake-oriented? 2. Water Distribution Systems: Why do we need systems? What systems exist? What are those systems composed of? What keeps them running? How does the fact that 80 per cent of Canada's population is urban affect these systems? What are the implications for Canadians who are not urban? What do the terms inter-governmental co-operation and water management have to do with this issue? How is water obtained and distributed throughout Canada? How do rising costs and public opposition to land-use changes affect water supplies and distribution? What does "efficiency" have to do with water distribution? 3. Water Treatment: Why have humans always had to treat water even in the most simple ways? What is the importance of the words quality and minimum standards to water treatment? What is the importance of the following in water treatment: temperature, colour, turbidity, odour and taste/palatability, micro-organisms, chemical treatments, screening, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and adsorption, distillation and reverse osmosis, aeration, coagulation, softening, pH adjustment, ion exchange, disinfection?




Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

A Tragic Flaw?

If we can detect E.coli in the water and if we can treat it with chlorine to make it safe to drink, then what went wrong at Walkerton? That is the question that the Walkerton Inquiry is attempting to answer. Was there a single great and irrevocable mistake that caused this tragedy, or was there a series of mistakes and circumstances? More and more it is beginning to look like the latter is true. Many elements seem to have unfortunately come together to produce the poisoning of the water supply. As you read this section, consider to what extent each of the following might have contributed to the tragedy.

1. A Faulty System of Rules and Regulations? In all bureaucracies it is necessary to have rules and regulations in place so that serious errors do not occur. In the case of Walkerton it seems that the regulations that were in place were not strict enough to prevent a deadly outbreak of E.coli. If this could happen in the richest province in Canada, then it could happen anywhere. Such was the fear of many Canadians, and with this fear they also began questioning whether their various levels of government were adequately protecting them from danger. The tragedy of Walkerton raised the issue of the public's confidence or faith in their governments to act in their interest. It has been suggested that a lack of federal and provincial regulation was responsible, at least in part, for allowing the situation to get out of hand without anybody knowing about it except Stan Koebal, the PUC manager.

2. The Lack of a National Standard? Some environmentalists have called for the federal government to establish a set of binding regulations for water quality that every province would have to follow. Currently, however, water quality standards are basically the responsibility of provincial governments. Federal and provincial governments have co-operated on the federal-provincial subcommittee on drinking water, which regularly updates guidelines for water safety. But these guidelines are not legally enforceable, they are merely suggestions. Each province and territory bases its water safety policy on these guidelines. Only Alberta and Quebec have legislation legally requiring that specific standards be followed province-wide.

3. Inefficient Intergovernmental Communication? Another problem with the lack of regulation that influenced the deadly outcome of Walkerton was that although most provincial governments receive water test results directly from the testing labs, in Ontario and Quebec the government relies on municipal water utilities to let them know if anything is wrong with the test results. In the case of Walkerton there was no regulation that said that the PUC had to inform the government of the presence of E.coli contamination. If there had been such a regulation perhaps deaths might have been prevented. In Ontario there has been a storm of criticism and a public perception that the government's failure to create and enforce a set of effective water safety guidelines contributed to the tragedy.


Click to Continue>>>












part 2

Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

A Tragic Flaw?

4. The Lack of Timely, Current Testing, and Adequate Staffing? What exactly is in place to regulate the quality of water in Ontario? There is no standard act of government whose rules and regulations all water utilities have to obey. A Crown Corporation known as Ontario's Clean Water Agency oversees about a third of the municipal systems in the province. The province's role in monitoring water quality depends mainly upon water utility inspections by members of the Ministry of the Environment and the Drinking Water Surveillance Program, which tests water in 145 of 627 water utilities, but this provincial body dropped E.coli testing in 1996 due to cutbacks. Aside from this, each of Ontario's 650 municipal water systems carries a Certificate of Approval (COA), which is supposed to outline the municipalities' legal requirements for operating the system. However, some of these certificates date back 40 years, long before the government introduced its new drinking water objectives, which contain the requirements for testing the supply and reporting the contamination. These requirements are not legally binding if they are not written in the certificate. Walkerton's COA was 20 years old. That means there was no legal requirement to report the E.coli hazard to either the Ministry of the Environment or the local Medical Officer of Health. Critics have asserted that without universal standards and up-to-date certification and lacking legal requirements for testing and reporting water conditions, an accident like Walkerton was waiting to happen.

5. Cost Cutting? The administration of Premier Mike Harris has been criticized not only for failing to provide a comprehensive system of water standards, but also for shifting the responsibility of water safety to municipalities and reducing the number of government inspectors who check water utilities, in an attempt to cut costs. Before the Harris government came to power in 1995 government labs tested the samples that were sent to them from water utilities, but when the Conservative Party came to power in Ontario they closed all four government labs, and municipal utilities were given the task of testing their own samples using private labs. Had the Walkerton samples gone to a government lab, the trained government staff would presumably have realized the danger and notified the Medical Health Office as well as the Public Utilities Manager. In the case of Walkerton the private lab did tell Stan Koebal about the presence of E.coli, but critics speculate whether Koebal did not realize the importance of this information and therefore did not pass the information on to the MHO. It is important to note that Koebal, like many utilities managers, is not a scientist or engineer. Given that there are many varieties of E.coli that are harmless it may not be surprising that he did not realize the serious danger that it posed. This, critics say, is why it is preferable that labs inform the Ministry of the Environment if they detect tainted water since their employees have much more scientific training. To further cut costs the government ended the obligation of private water labs to inform the government of tainted water. Having eliminated government water testing and also having eliminated the


need for private labs to report water contamination to the government, the Ontario Government left the responsibility of water safety in the hands of the municipalities. In the case of Walkerton that came down to one man who made a mistake. There was no procedure for sharing the information among different levels of the government and the public. Had such a procedure been in place the outcome of Walkerton might have been less tragic.

6. A Reduced Network of Human Resources? The Ontario Government also came in for criticism for cutting 40 per cent from the Environment budget and laying off 900 of the Ministry of the Environment's 2400 employees. These are the people whose job it is to keep an eye on all sorts of pollution and ensure that organizations follow environmental rules. This included terminating 42 per cent of the staff assigned to looking after drinking water. This determined how many inspections of water utilities could be done. For example, before the cuts in 1993-1994 the province carried out 470 inspections a year, but in 1998-1999 that number was down to 152 because 37 district environment officers, who conduct plant inspections, were laid off. Would an inspection have made a difference at Walkerton? It's hard to tell, but it is certainly a human characteristic that we are more likely to do something thoroughly if we know we are going to be examined on it. Would you do your homework if you knew the teacher wasn't going to show up the next day?

<<<Back to Part 1 Click to Continue>>>




Other Related Videos Available from CBC Learning






Does Your Resource Collection Include These CBC Videos?



part 3

Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

A Tragic Flaw?

7. Reduced Government Intervention in Social Institutions or the Democratic Process? The Harris Government's "Common Sense Revolution" was based on the idea that there should be less government regulation and services and more reliance on the business world to enrich society as a whole. Tax cuts and a balanced budget were promised, and these promises were fulfilled. However tax cuts and balanced budgets mean that you have to cut costs. For a government this usually means cutting social services like health, education, and costly programs like environmental protection procedures. With less regulation and fewer people to enforce existing regulations, services become less efficient and reliable. As a result, many citizens of Walkerton have blamed their provincial government for not doing its job to protect their welfare. But doesn't the will of the majority of voters determine what a government's role is to be? This government was elected on the basis of less regulation, a balanced budget, and tax cuts. They did what they said they would do and the voters of Ontario agreed with their plan. If the government is in part responsible for the tragedy of Walkerton, then does not that responsibility extend to the voters of Ontario? Money is always limited, and we have to decide whether we would prefer that money in a tax cut or spent on services to protect us. Rather than simply blame the government, people need to decide what is most important to them. According to some, a thorough overhaul of Ontario's water system is needed, and may cost nine billion dollars. Are Ontario taxpayers prepared to pay that price for good drinking water?

8. Industrial "Factory" Farming? So far we have looked at what happened when E.coli got into the Walkerton water system, and how a lack of regulation and enforcement may have contributed to the tragedy, but how did the water become polluted in the first place? It was mentioned earlier that E.coli-contaminated manure was probably the culprit. Remember that on May 12, 2000, there were heavy rains in the area and it is suspected that floodwaters swept E.coli-contaminated pig and cattle manure into a drainage pipe of one of the Walkerton wells. Most small municipalities across the country use groundwater as a source of their drinking water rather than surface water like lakes and rivers, which large cities usually use. Groundwater is water naturally existing in underground reservoirs. Groundwater originates above ground as rain but soaks through the ground into porous channels in the earth. As the water seeps down, the soil acts as a natural filter straining out impurities, which means that most groundwater is of very good quality. To obtain groundwater, municipalities dig wells in the ground and pump the water up. At Walkerton it is suspected that during flooding, contaminated water entered the casing at the top of one of the wells, or a nearby drainage pipe. It was because the bad water entered the pipe that the water supply was poisoned; if the water had just soaked into the soil it would most likely have been purified by the time it became groundwater. The poisoning of water in this manner has brought up the issue of what is


called factory farming. It used to be that across the country there were thousands of farmers who might, perhaps, own 100 head of cattle; but in recent years the livestock business has become industrialized, meaning there are fewer farms, but they are much larger. For example, in Alberta there are now only 50 beef producers who control 80 per cent of the province's slaughtered beef. The feedlots where the cattle are kept may hold 25 000 cattle in a space the size of a city block. That many cattle produce a great amount of manure in a small space; manure that is then spread directly on fields. This scenario is pretty much the same everywhere in Canada. Up to now governments across Canada have encouraged factory farming, deeming it highly cost- and revenue-effective. The idea behind it is that by jamming animals together into huge barns farmers will be able to cut costs and sell products more cheaply. Canada's hog business alone is a multibillion-dollar industry that employs 100 000 people. Before Walkerton the Ontario government, among others, was reluctant to regulate the industry, but under continued pressure they have recently allowed municipal governments to ban factory farms on a temporary basis until laws for handling the tonnes of manure they produce are in place. Keep in mind that it has not been proved that the E.coli-contaminated manure came from a factory farm; it may have come from a single small independent farm. Still, the existence of huge unregulated farms generating thousands of litres of liquid manure a day increases the chances of pollution. This type of farming was discussed in a provincial water commission in Quebec that criticized the Quebec government for allowing farmers to contaminate water with manure, pesticides, and fertilizer. Even if it was not the direct source of contamination in the Walkerton tragedy, factory farming does pose a serious threat to the environment. Dr. Murray McQuigge of the Medical Health Office in Walkerton has said that "poor nutrient management on farms is leading to the degradation of the quality of groundwater, streams, and lakes."

Accountability, or "Who's to Blame?" Often when something as horrible as what happened at Walkerton occurs people want to quickly blame someone. They do this because they don't feel safe until they have corrected what went wrong. The problem is sometimes that there is a tendency to make a scapegoat out of a few individuals because it is easier to punish a few people than to recognize that the problem is much deeper and more complex to fix than we would like to think. It's normal to want a simple answer, but in the case of Walkerton, many observers suggest that there isn't one. Many factors contributed to the outcome.

Aftermath, Truth, and Consequences Working in small groups, read this section again and discuss what you consider the salient points. Then as a group, brainstorm a list of five recommendations that you would make to a government body conducting an inquiry of the Walkerton tragedy. Compare your results with those of other groups but most importantly follow this ongoing story and, perhaps by creating a bulletin board clipping file, trace and summarize the aftermath of Walkerton.

<<<< Back to Part 2




Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index


With the current intense focus on E.coli, other threats to safe drinking water may go unnoticed or be less publicized. There are, however, many other dangerous substances in drinking water and some that are just as harmful.

Three Types of Water Poisoning

1. Microbiological: This includes bacteria, of which E.coli is only one kind. It also includes parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, which live in the intestines of humans and animals, and though they are not usually as deadly as E.coli, are harder to kill even with chlorine. Most microbiological hazards are short-term threats; you suffer the effects of the poisoned water quickly.

2. Chemical: Many chemicals can cause cancer. These can be naturally occurring chemicals or synthetic chemicals such as those found in pesticides and fertilizers. Ironically the chlorine that we put in water to destroy the first type of water poisoning can create a second type of water poisoning. Disinfectants like chlorine can combine with decaying leaves and other naturally occurring organic matter to form compounds called disinfection byproducts (DBP's). These compounds are carcinogenic, meaning they cause cancer. If someone is exposed to this type of pollution over a long time they may eventually get cancer. The U.S.'s Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between two and 17 per cent of all bladder cancer cases in the United States may be due to DBP's in the drinking water. This type of long-term threat may be less obvious than the E.coli that killed six people at Walkerton, but it kills a lot more people. One thing to keep in mind is that it is usually the obvious and quick disaster like Walkerton that gets media attention. Slower, but even greater threats like cancer-causing chemicals in our waters may not get the media attention they deserve.

3. Radioactivity: As in the case of chemical poisoning, radioactive contamination can be either naturally occurring or synthetic. An instance of the synthetic variety is the poisoning that took place at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia when there was an explosion and a massive radiation leak.

Furthermore, the spread of factory farming, the common use of pesticides, and the large variety of industrial toxins being pumped into the environment constantly threaten our water supply. According to Brad Fairley of Agriculture Canada's Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration, parts of Western Canada have some of the worst water in North America; meanwhile in Judique, Cape Breton, residents were recently warned that their water contained high levels of trihalomethane, a carcinogen byproduct of water treatment. In Moncton, New Brunswick, in 1997 tests found dangerous microbiological bacteria in the water, which forced the 80 000 inhabitants to boil their water for five weeks. These


cases indicate that the Walkerton tragedy is not an isolated example of water pollution.












Contents

Introduction




A Tragic Flaw?



Index

Discussion, Research and Essay Question

1. In large cities drinking water usually comes from surface sources such as lakes and rivers and is filtered at large water treatment facilities. Towns usually use wells to tap groundwater and have smaller facilities. Find out where your water comes from and ask someone from the local water treatment centre to come in and discuss water treatment and water hazards. 2. The Walkerton Inquiry is an ongoing independent investigation into the cause of the events leading to the tragedy. Access its Web site at www.walkertoninquiry.com or write to it at: The Walkerton Inquiry, 180 Dundas Street West, 22nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1Z8. Maintain a summary "advisory" of the current findings of the inquiry. 3. The people of Walkerton will not be able to drink tap water for months. In small groups think of all the tap water you use in a day and what you use it for. Be specific and make a list. Then imagine that you couldn't use any of it for a month. How would this affect you, your family, and your neighbourhood? 4. In Canada more than four million people use private wells for their drinking water, and surface water often serves as the only supply for cottagers and campers. These sources can become contaminated and require disinfection. Go to the Health Canada Web site at www.hc-sc.gc.ca and search for "water treatment devices." What are the different types of water treatment devices available for these sources of water? How do these devices disinfect the water? 5. Air quality has just as much an effect on our health as water quality. The federal Auditor-General's office recently criticized the federal and provincial governments for a decade of inaction on improving air quality. Smog alone reportedly kills 5000 people a year in Canada. Research what the major pollutants of air quality are, and examine ways in which air quality might be improved. You might want to start your research at Environment Canada's Web site at www.mb.ec.gc.ca. 6. What should the role of government be? Some people believe in a hands-on type of government that strongly regulates various industries in the public interest. Others believe in a hands-off form of government where the government only provides the minimum amount of control and regulation and gives individuals and the private sector the most freedom. What model of government do you prefer? Why? Consider governments that you are aware of that follow either of the above models. 7. Water is a limited resource, meaning that we can run out of it. Research some ways in which we can save this most necessary ingredient for life. Start researching at the Health Canada Web Site given above. Search under "water facts." Also try Environment Canada's Web site. 8. Water is often used as a metaphor in literature, perhaps because it is essential to human life. Look up water in Bartlett's Dictionary of Quotations (or at its Web site at www.bartleby.com) and examine all the entries. What does water symbolize in these quotations? What properties or characteristics of water are used as similes or metaphors? Explain your choices.


deadly water: the lessons of walkerton - contents...deadly water: the lessons of walkerton contents...

Documents