Posts
Visiting Christchurch? Don’t Drink the Water. No Seriously. It’s Untreated and There’s No Accountability
A2NZ,
19
August, 2016
New
Zealand’s claim to be a first world country took a severe battering
with the mass outbreak of Campylobacter from Havelock North’s
untreated water supply. Up to 4,100 people are believed to have been
affected and at least one person has died as a result, two others are
in emergency are.
Katie Bradford
Over 4100 people have now been affected by Havelock Nth gastro outbreak. 106 confirmed cases of campylobacter. 15 in hospital, 2 in ICU.
Now
we learn that Christchurch
also has untreated water and that it tested positive for E.coli
bacteria (an
indicator of faecal contamination) 14 times last year. E. coli has
often been associated with cow faeces, of
which New Zealand has plenty.
Apparently
the council are responsible for looking after the town’s water,
which means councillors
are not personally responsible if
anyone is ill from drinking it. You get sick, you’re basically on
your own: paying your own medical bills (not cheap in NZ) and losing
income from work. In other words it’s your
fault for
deciding to drink untreated water, even if you didn’t know about
it.
‘She’ll
be right, it’s too hard” is not an effective public health
measure for most first world countries
According
to the local press
Not treating Christchurch drinking water potentially saved “billions of dollars” but one lobbyist said if councillors were personally liable for the consequences they would not take the risk.
The council tests water daily for E coli, but it took 24 hours to get results. A total of 5487 samples were tested for E coli over the 2015 to 2016 reporting year…Currently only Akaroa, Takamatua, Duvauchelle and Little River have a chlorinated water supply in Christchurch. source
John
Pfahlert, chief executive of lobby group Water New Zealand, said
“The issue that happened in Havelock North could easily happen in Canterbury. It has happened in Darfield.” He said it was up to communities to decide whether their water was chlorinated, but they should bear in mind the greater risk they exposed themselves to.
And
what about the tourists
and visitors to
Chritschurch who don’t get a say?…
Pfahlert said an organisation with a personally-liable board of directors would “never take that risk“. “Because councillors are not personally liable for those consequences, we get a bunch of different outcomes around the country.” He recommended central government consider whether water chlorination should be mandatory.
“Even if we decide to do nothing, we will have looked under the hood.”
100%
pure New Zealand. Not even close.
Isn’t
it time to drop the pretense before someone sues for false
advertising? Let’s drink to that. With bottled water.
Positive E coli tests 'not surprising' in Christchurch untreated water supply
19 August, 2016
E
coli bacteria were found in Christchurch water 14 times during
regular tests by Christchurch City Council last year.
The
figures, released in the wake of the Havelock North water
contamination crisis, has prompted calls for the city to reconsider
chlorination.
Not
treating Christchurch drinking water potentially saved "billions
of dollars" but one lobbyist said if councillors were personally
liable for the consequences they would not take the risk.
The
council tests water daily for E coli, but it took 24 hours to get
results. A total of 5487 smples were tested for E coli over the 2015
to 2016 reporting year.
Canterbury
medical officer of health Alistair Humphrey said the 14 positive
tests should not cause alarm, but they did highlight a risk.
"What's
happening in Havelock North is a salient reminder of how important it
is to protect our water supply."
Currently
only Akaroa, Takamatua, Duvauchelle and Little River have a
chlorinated water supply in Christchurch.
Humphrey
said it was "not surprising" that E coli was detected from
time to time in a large untreated water system.
The
Christchurch City Council's head of three waters and waste John
Mackie said it could take 24 hours for E coli test results to come
through.
"We
have extra monitoring in Christchurch because our community have
chosen as a group not to have their water treated."
He
said a "belt and braces" approach would be to chlorinate
the supply, which would reduce risk even further.
"From
a health perspective we would generally advocate for the very safest
water."
Christchurch's
water supply is graded "b", or "satisfactory, very low
level of risk". Without treating the water with systems such as
chlorination, UV light, and membrane filtration, it is impossible for
Christchurch to get an "a" rating.
That
does not mean the water is bad, it just means it carries more risk.
Humphrey
said he was happy to drink Christchurch tap water. "As a
Christchurch resident, it's one of the things I'm most proud of."
But
he said it was worth revisiting the chlorination debate, especially
in light of the campylobacter infection in Havelock North's water
supply.
Because
Christchurch takes its water from many wells and bores around the
city, it would be more difficult and expensive to treat than in a
city with one water source, such as a river.
Humphrey
said not treating the water saved the ratepayers "millions,
probably billions of dollars".
He
said the systems in place to deal with an outbreak were "by and
large" adequate. "I have warned people that this is a risk
that we have to be mindful of."
John
Pfahlert, chief executive of lobby group Water New Zealand, said low
risk did not mean no risk. "[In Havelock North] the probability
was low, but we've infected 3000 people," he said.
"The
issue that happened in Havelock North could easily happen in
Canterbury. It has happened in Darfield."
He
said it was up to communities to decide whether their water was
chlorinated, but they should bear in mind the greater risk they
exposed themselves to.
Pfahlert
said an organisation with a personally-liable board of directors
would "never take that risk".
"Because
councillors are not personally liable for those consequences, we get
a bunch of different outcomes around the country."
He
recommended central government consider whether water chlorination
should be mandatory.
"Even
if we decide to do nothing, we will have looked under the hood."
Christchurch
City Council's head of three waters and waste John Mackie said the
positive E coli results were likely from water sources where damaged
roofs allowed bird faeces or other matter to infect the water.
He
said the council had a plan to upgrade and repair the at-risk water
sources by June 2018.
Mackie
said when E coli was detected, the council sterilised reservoirs and
pipes, informed the public of any outbreak, and triggered a public
health response.
This
could be 24 hours after a sample was taken though, and Mackie said
chlorination was "a debate that we need to have".
Humphries
said all areas were not equal when it came to water quality, with a
particularly shallow aquifer in north-western Christchurch.
The
council planned to replace 22 bores in the area.
"We
would like that plan to be followed through as promptly as possible,"
said Humphrey.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.