Water ain't forever - Proyect

[debs]

For a long-term assignment I need to investigate on any environmental problem and find a solution, which is what makes the project pretty interesting.

As you may know, water pollution is not only affecting my country (Argentina) but the rest of the world. I’ve been doing most of my research on Rio de la Plata, which is number three on the ranking “the most contaminated rivers ever” according to the latest statistics given by WWF.

No wonder it’s pretty sick! It has been inundated with chemical and biological contaminants for years now, and has exceeded its capacity to clean itself.

Still few people are committed to do something and you have no idea how many politicians have promised to “clean rio de la plata” or well, the riachuelo to be more specific. Broken promises.

Anyway, I want to find an original and applicable solution to the problem. I’m currently reading the Tamesis and other rivers clean up, trying to gather data on how this was done.

Maybe there’s a possibility our river can follow the example but I know it’s quite a large operation and pretty expensive too.

I’ve come up with this idea a few days ago so I’m just getting started.

I would like to know your opinion on the matter and ask for any piece of advice you could give me.

There’s a possibility we may compete with other secondary schools if our work is strong enough. So… It would be great some criticism. (not very cruel please! )

I'll keep in touch

 

[gigantes]

if it was me, i'd try activism, ie raising awareness, building community, finding ways to put public pressure on officials, maybe appealing to those with influence or money.

dunno what else a non-scientist, non-wealthy person, non-politician could do about this.

 

[chrispenycate]

As far as I know, there's no magic way of cleaning a waterway; it's a question of reducing the nasties thown into it, and giving it a chance to recover on its own; the sort of long, slow solution that doesn't appeal to politicians (they can't point out how well it's going; still, they can't really be held to the fact that it isn't going any faster. either)
In the case of specific poisoning it's possible to dredge out a couple of megatonnes of contaminated sludge, but that's really expensive, and you need somewhere to dump it afterwards (not out to sea, please)
Considering that treating effluent is more expensive than bribing politicians, and that the people doing the polluting are rarely the ones who suffer the consequences, (and add, as the cherry on the cake, that you can always accuse the inhabitants of the other bank as being responsible; all countries bordering onto the river need similar laws, and need to enforce them) the probability of any reasonable line of advance succeeding is minimal (they're trying to get our factory shut down/ render us economically uncompetitive. They want to destroy your job, push the country into poverty, restart the inflation. Don't tell me that a healthy population wastes fewer resources - explain to a government largely under the pressure of the rich minority)
What are the particular polluants that are affecting the river Plate? (yes, I could Google them, but I'm lazy) There might be one or two palliatives that would work fast, and thus look good to politicians. The only real solution would be a pollution tax, with unbribable inspectors, making it more expensive to go on the old way than clan up your act (that's a lot of money, and would almost certainly cause bankrupcies and unenployment, and what politician is going to go for that?
So, have you considered terrorism? Occasional assassination of recalcitrant officials (forcing them to drink untreated river water would seem a good start) might cause a reasonable concentration on the very real problems. (this was not intended as a serious solution, however attractive it might seem)

 

[The Ace]

That's a point, the River Clyde (Glasgow) used to be filthy because of the heavy industry on it's banks. It's clean now, and the centre of the biggest unemployment blackspot in Scotland.

 

[debs]

Pollution taxes were the first step proposed but unemployment is inevitable.

I’m starting to think water pollution; especially Rio de la Plata case is way too complicated. Not as much information as I thought is available on the internet... or at least I don’t seem to find it.

I’ve found several ways of “cleaning” water but such a large quantity seems impossible. It’s a good idea to separate the contamination itself into specific pollutants and then think of a good way to treat them.

I’m not innocent enough to believe things will change simply because of some paper work but they are evaluating the project itself and the possibility of it being realistic enough. This doesn’t necessary mean it has to be totally applicable.

As you've said, tt's truly difficult to convince politicians and money is a huge problem too!

Anyway I guess I’m going to keep on going. Thanks a lot!

 

[chrispenycate]

From what I've found, most of the problems are from organics, particularly pesticides, PCBs and untreated sewage. Heavy metals, that could have been chelated out (though what to do when they join the mud on the bed?) and petrolium products, that are starting to have techniques developed, largely because rich countries have the same problems, are relatively minor.
The sewage is easy: reduce the influx, and biological systems will clean the stuff up. It might not smell particularly nice, and you may find yourself with an excess of some organisms you didn't particularly want, but biological systems have evolved to handle that problem (side question - the "Aguas Argentinas" affair; practically all the articles are from 2004. Obviously the crisis cooled down, but in which direction; the government accepting the status quo, the company cleaning up their act, or pulling out completely to somewhere potential returns were higher?)
Obviously, most of the sites I visited were anglophone or francophone; my spanish is negligible, and my guarani; well, I've heard it spoken (which probably puts me ehead of 90% of people on this site) but understand anything?
Pesticides are another matter. Some of them will last for centuries, unless someone developes techniques for breaking them down, and they can kick around in the sludge at the bottom, to be released every time there's a storm, or someone dredges a channel clear. And they've been specifically designed to target biological systems. Not good for wildlife, bacteria, humans... Generally they're big molecules, easy to separate in small scale, but we're not talking small scale here, are we? That's one serious estuary.
The other thing that sticks out is the total lack of co-operation between the two banks (river banks, not the money kind) The only articles which include Uruguai and Argentina are about arguments over a paper factory; not one combined study, let alone a co-operative project. This is not good; pollution, like disease (I've a friend who's invested most of his working life in attempting to get South American countries to co-operate in wiping out Chagas disease - I do have some idea of the problems involved) tends to ignore national boundaries, and refuse to respect immigration controls.

Still, despairing because a problem is difficut is not the answer, either. If the income from pollution taxes can pay for the work force needed for the cleanup, unemployment doesn't need to rise (I know, need external experts, imported sophisticated machinery, and the money flows out of the local economy; but local people are learning the techniques, and when other countries discover they've got the same problems, the flow is reversed; just that it takes decades, and politicians can't imagine more than four years into the future) No-one can accurately assess the economic weight of the ill health; probably higher than the profits being made by skimping on retreatment of wastes.
And one of the few advantages of democracy is that, with more poor than rich, they can ultimately oblige conditions to change.
If they know what the conditions are, if they can co-operate to force the matter.