talkclacton.myfastforum.org

amenity · Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 775 Location: Dovercourt

This is a large file from Marinet but so important and is worth a read.

Hello,

We have issued nationally our story about the serious under reporting by the UK government of the health risks to bathers in UK sea bathing waters due to sewage pollution. See text of our national news release below, and you can see the MARINET research on which this story is based at http://www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/gbeachg.html

We now want to do a Regional News Release, so that local newspapers and media can focus on the bathing water quality in their area and, importantly, inform the public in your area about the risks when they go to a local or UK seaside resort this summer. In other words, this story is as relevant to someone living in Birminham or Bradford as it is to someone living in Brighton or Boscastle (Cornwall).

To enable us to do this we want you to supply us with your local and regional contacts which you think would be interested in reporting and covering this story.

What we need is the name of the newspaper or organisation, the name of the contact (editor or correspondent) and their email address. Please supply email address and not postal address as we do not have the resources to cope with a huge mailout.

Also, do have a look at the bathing water quality in your area - see our website address/report above - and if you want to be involved in talking to the local media please let me know when you reply to me with your media contacts.

Regards,
Stephen.
On behalf of MARINET
Tel. 01249 653972
Embargo date:
Wednesday, 12.00 noon NEWS RELEASE

4th April 2007.

British Bathing Waters – UK Government

concealing serious health risks.

MARINET (1) has today published evidence (2) which shows that British seaside bathing waters could be seriously polluted by dangerous pathogens (3) which present a very serious health risk to bathers.

Although the UK Government claims that 99.5% of UK bathing waters meet the mandatory standard (4) of the EC Bathing Water Directive, research by MARINET has discovered that testing of bathing water quality has ignored serious pathogens (3) which are often present due to sewage pollution and, in reality, only 5.5% of UK beaches meet the EC’s full mandatory bathing water standard.

Patrick Gowen, MARINET’s researcher says “ We have known for some time that the UK Government has been fiddling the figures on UK bating water quality, but the scale of this mis-representation has surprised us. We have discovered that UK bathing waters are, almost universally, not being tested for the real pathogens caused by sewage pollution – although the EC Directive says that the UK should be doing this testing. The Environment Agency’s testing results for 2006, on which bathing water quality status for 2007 is based, show that the only region which properly tested for these pathogens was Northern Ireland. Therefore our advice to UK bathers this summer is “Beware – the Blue Flags (5) are virtually meaningless. The only place doing proper testing is Northern Ireland, so to protect your health perhaps the wise thing to do would be to take a Northern Irish seaside holiday this summer!”

For full details about MARINET’s research into Bathing Water Quality and the MARINET 2007 Bathing Water Quality report, visit http://www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/gbeachg.html

Contact: Pat Gowen, MARINET researcher, tel. 01603 402554, pat.gowen@btconnect.com

or

Stephen Eades, MARINET co-ordinator, tel. 01249 653972, stephen.marinet@btinternt.com

Notes to Editors:

1. MARINET is the Marine Network of Friends of the Earth Local Groups, www.marinet.org.uk

2. The full published evidence relating to the compliance of UK Bathing Waters with the mandatory standard of the EC Bathing Water Directive, 76.160/EEC is available at http://www.marinet.org.uk/ukbw/gbeachg.html

3. The types of pathogens present in sea water as a result of sewage discharges are numerous. The testing regime to comply with the mandatory standard of the EC Bathing Water Directive, 76/160/EEC, requires testing for salmonella and enteroviruses, and requires that none are present. In 2006 the UK Government only tested for salmonella and enteroviruses in 40 out of 530 UK bathing waters. The types of pathogens that this sampling is looking for and the diseases they can cause are as follows :

1) Bacterial Pathogens
Pathogen
Disease Associated

Campylobacter
Gastroenteritis

Chlostridium Botulinis
Botulism

Certain Coliforms
Diarrhoea & Blood Poisoning

E.Coli-0157
Gastroenteritis & Renal Failure

Leptospira
Leptospirosis (Weill's Disease)

Proteus types
Diarrhoea

Psuedomonas
Localised Infection

Salmonella Typhi
Typhoid & other enteric fevers

Other Salmonella serotypes
Food Poisoning Symptoms

Shigella (various)
Bacterial Dysentery

Tubercle bacilli
Tubercolosis

Yersinia enterococci
Gastroenteritis

2) Viral Pathogens
Pathogen
Disease Associated

Adenovirus
Acute Haemorrhagic Cystitis

Cocksackie
Aseptic Meningitis

Echovirus
Aseptic Meningitis

Epidemic Gastroenteritis B
Gasroenteritis

Infectious Hepatitis
Liver Inflammation

Norwalkvirus
Gastroenteritis

Poliovirus
Poliomyelitis & Meningitis

Small Round Viruses (SRV's)
Gastroenteritis

Reference:- Memoranda from Pat Gowen, Norwich & Broadland Friends of the Earth to the House of Commons 1997-98 Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on 'Sewage Treatment and Disposal', pages 179 - 188, published 28th October 1997.Stationary Office, London, HC266-III.

Additional to these are parasites that also can damage health, such as: -

3) Parasites
Parasite
Disease Associated

Balantidium Coli
Balantidial Dysentary

Cryptosporidium
Epidemic Diarrhoea

Entamoeba Histolyticad
Amoebic Dysentary

Giardia Lamblia
Diarrhoea

Intestinal Flukes
Intestinal Infections

Isopora hominus
Coccidosis

Liver Flukes
Liver infection

Pinworm (eggs)
Ascariasis

Tapeworms
Tapeworm infestation

4. The sampling regime for the Mandatory Standard requires that a bathing water must have no more than 5% of the samples (1 of the 20) showing either more than 10,000 total coliforms per 100ml, or 2,000 faecal coliforms per 100ml. This, and this alone, is what DEFRA's claimed passes are based upon.

However, what is withheld from knowledge in the United Kingdom is that the Directive also demands that in order to meet the imperative mandatory standard the bathing water must also have a complete absence of both enteroviruses and salmonella.

A single finding of either enteroviruses or salmonella over the whole previous year's sampling fails the resort against the imperative mandatory standard, as it is these pathogens, not the coliforms, that are responsible for most of the illnesses associated with bathing in sewage polluted waters.

The UK Government claims that these pathogens are not investigated because of the cost involved in doing so. Yet, although on a different budget, that cost imposed to the NHS and public health is far greater!

5. Blue Flags are administered by ENCAMS (formerly The Tidy Britain Group). To obtain a Blue Flag a bathing water must pass both the mandatory and guideline standards of the EC Bathing Water Directive, see: http://www.blueflag.org.uk/blue1.asp If a bathing water has not been tested for salmonella and enteroviruses, as many UK Blue Flag bathing waters are not, then it cannot be said that the bathing water complies with the mandatory standard, thus the Blue Flag status is suspect.

END.

amenity · Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 775 Location: Dovercourt

Another from the Marinet site.

Port of Tyne - Poison in the Water
From Newcastle Evening Chronicle 5th Jan 06

A ticking toxic timebomb has been dumped off the North East coast, environmentalists fear.

Official documents obtained by the Chronicle reveal 84,000 tonnes of sediment containing harmful toxins used in shipbuilding were dredged from the Tyne and dumped in the North Sea.

The toxic waste is lying four miles off the coast at Souter Point and it contains materials believed to reduce the effectiveness of the human immune system. It was dumped by the Port of Tyne Authority in March 2005 as part of a £3.2m trial to tackle a legacy of industrial waste contained in ports and rivers around the UK.

The Port of Tyne is the first in the country to try out the disposal of waste in this manner after applying to the Department for Rural Affairs (Defra) for a licence.

The official documents come from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, a marine science adviser to Defra. They reveal the waste sediment should have been buried securely under a 1.5-metre thick cap of sand and silt, but was in fact buried under just 0.65 metres.

Defra ordered the Port of Tyne to bump up the cap and last June it was increased to 0.8 metres thick, still only just over half the required thickness.

The document also reveals that Souter Point is a "dispersive" site, which means the toxic materials could potentially wash on to our beaches.

A large amount of the waste is made up of the anti-fouling agent tibutyltin oxide (TBT), used for many years on ships' hulls to prevent marine life from colonising there. TBT has been found to cause extensive damage to marine organisms and has now entered the food chain through the eating of sea life. In some parts of the world TBT levels in human blood are alarmingly high.

Engineer Bob Latimer, 63, of Whitburn, South Tyneside, is a member of Marinet, the marine arm of Friends of the Earth. He said: "They have tried to bung this waste in the sea and forget about it. They have tried to pass it off as normal dredge waste, but it contains harmful toxins. TBTs are designed to damage sea life so it seems ludicrous to me to put this toxin into the sea."

But Port of Tyne managing director Keith Wilson said the trial had been successful and was being constantly monitored. He said: "We have been researching this for eight years as part of a bid to finally completely clear up the Tyne.
"Following extensive consultations with Defra we were awarded a licence to conduct a trial for the disposal of this waste with a monitoring program that is still on-going.
"It is a fact that the 1.5-metre cap was ideally to be achieved, but the cap in place is more than adequate and Defra is very happy with the monitoring going on.
"This is an issue that bedevils ports worldwide. It is the first time this disposal technique has been used in the UK. But it is a tried and tested technique used successfully in many other parts of the world.
"This is something where we have been progressive in that we have not buried our heads in the sand. We have spent £1.5m on monitoring of the situation and I am pleased to say it is a success."
Ticking Timebomb

Our industrial legacy has left us with a ticking toxic timebomb in the Tyne. Nearly 150 years of shipbuilding saw tonnes of waste toxins, metals and materials dumped in the river.

The Port of Tyne Authority decided it was time to deal with this and two years ago was granted a licence by the Government to carry out a trial dumping exercise at sea. Nearly 60,000 cubic metres of contaminated dredge material (CDM) - roughly 84,000 tonnes - was removed from three sites on the Tyne and dumped four miles off the coast at Souter Point. Some 29,314 cubic metres was pulled up from the Neptune Yard, 20,959 cubic metres from Wallsend Dry Docks, including Engine Works Quay, and 8,534 cubic metres from Swan Hunter's slipway ends.

The material was tested and found to be grossly contaminated with the anti-fouling agent tributylin oxide (TNT). Tests also revealed traces of dibutyltin (DBT), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) and heavy metals.

amenity · Joined: 22 Nov 2006 Posts: 775 Location: Dovercourt

This from Lloyds List,

GREEN news revisited now. Cast your minds back to February last year and the loss of the chemical tanker ECE , laden with 10,000 tonnes of phosphoric acid after a collision in the English Channel.

Somewhat alarmist reports at the time suggested that the cargo, as it leached out onto the sea, would have serious effects on the marine ecosystem.

More improbable elements hinted that the chemical, which is employed largely in the production of fertiliser, would over-nourish the pelagic water column so that Cornish pilchards would grow to the size of porpoises and the kelp would block up the Western Approaches.

Reassurance has come in the form of a Maritime and Coastguard Agency Marine Information Note which points out that a couple of expeditions to the wreck site with experts from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory found no detrimental effects from the release of the cargo.

If there are any effects, concludes the MCA note, “they are likely to be a fertilising effect of phosphate”.

There was, however, no mention of 10 foot pilchards, which probably disappoints some people.

Concerns expressed at the time of the sinking are said to have been “unfounded”.

talkclacton.myfastforum.org

A discussion group on local issues for residents of Tendring District