GWI still has not commented on the location of the Fyrish water well in the cemetery

Dear Editor, I could recall that a letter writer, Mr Imtiaz Bacchus, questioned the health issues of a GWI well located in the cemetery at Fyrish Village which provides drinking water for thousands of residents in the surrounding areas.

As far as I could recall there was no comment offered by GWI on the issues raised by Mr Bacchus. I found this to be very irresponsible. We are talking about the health of the people and the head of GWI is a doctor by profession and of all people should have proffered an explanation to allay the concerns of the residents. Why was there no explanation to allay the fears of the residents?

I was shocked that experts at GWI and the health authorities would have allowed this risk to residents’ health to be ignored. I wish to state some findings of a research paper. “In the process of decomposition of a human body, 0.4–0.6 litres of leachate is produced per 1 kg of body weight. The leachate contains pathogenic bacteria and viruses that may contaminate the groundwater and cause disease when it is used for drinking. So far, this topic has been investigated in several regions of the world (mainly Brazil, Australia, the Republic of South Africa, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Poland). However, recently more and more attention has been focused on this issue. A thorough study was done and the results of investigations related to the impact of cemeteries on groundwater bacteriology and virology are well-documented. The contaminants coming from the body can include chemical substances applied in chemotherapy and embalming processes (e.g., arsenic, formaldehyde and methanol), makeup (e.g., cosmetics, pigments and chemical compounds), as well as various additional items, such as fillings, cardiac pacemakers, paints, varnishes, metal hardware elements, iron nails, etc. These leachates also contain microorganisms that may pollute substrates, surface water and groundwater.

“The microorganisms chiefly include bacteria, viruses, intestinal fungi and protozoa. They can also originate from other sources, e.g., animals, soil, water and the atmosphere… some microorganisms can survive even up to 5 years and, in this time, they can migrate and reach the groundwater.” (http://jwh.iwaponline.com/content/ppiwajwh/13/2/285.full.pdf)

The same study went on to state that, “It is worth emphasizing that bacteria transported by water, like those of the genus Shigella, as well as rotaviruses and protozoans of the genera Entamoeba and Giardia, often cause asymptomatic or serious infections with high mortality rates, particularly among children… cemeteries may have large adverse impacts on groundwater and can be a source of dangerous infectious diseases.”

It must be noted that the Fyrish Cemetery is located just across the twelve foot dam where the residents live, so it poses a high risk during flooding.

The study also stated that the health hazards from cemeteries are nothing new and caught the attention of scientists at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1879, the French Society for Hospital Hygiene noticed the relationship between typhoid fever and groundwater contaminated by leachates from a cemetery in Paris. Since these findings go back a long time it befuddles the mind why this well should be located in a cemetery when there is an abundance of land nearby.

The study also revealed “the large influence of climatic conditions on the bacteriological contamination of the groundwater and most researchers express the opinion that a warmer and moister climate is the principal factor in significant contamination of the environment …”

According to the World Health Organization “Human or animal remains must not be buried within 250 metres of any well, borehole or spring from which a potable water supply is drawn”. This makes the location of the well at Fyrish highly questionable.

In conclusion, the residents must know the rationale behind the location such as the type of soil and its permeability to permit leaching and seepage. The questions are how far the graves are above the water table, and the effects of flooding in the cemetery on the percolation of the groundwater. However, it must be borne in mind that the location of the water well in a cemetery whether or not it satisfies the criteria of suitability will do nothing to alleviate the psychological fear which eats the minds of the residents, causing many of them to buy water for drinking purposes. Yours faithfully, Haseef Yusuf Councillor RDC Region 6

Dear Editor,

The Guyana government has been receiving severe criticism from Guyanese and non-Guyanese alike for the terms and conditions of the agreement executed with Exxon. The main critics in Georgetown are from attorney and accountant, Christopher Ram, and a few opposition members, but detailed and important points were raised by Guyanese in the diaspora.

Unfortunately our home-based countrymen and women are somewhat resentful about us in the diaspora giving our views; they don’t give a hoot about what we have to say. Their derisive comment is that members of the diaspora ran away when things were bad so why are we now trying to “interfere”. They feel that we now want to take a piece of their long awaited cake. That’s the reality.

The current power-brokers in government have tunnel vision and would not entertain our contributions, especially given who we are. However, be that as it may, we must continue to soldier on. Most members of the diaspora in the US feel that we should have four oil companies: a holding company to hold the assets; a marketing company to market gas and oil; an off-shore company to conduct the operations and an on-shore company to conduct the operations.

The arrangements now in place are far from being satisfactory. Even the oppressive IMF has recently criticized the contract which the Guyana government finalized with ExxonMobil; they literally said that Guyana did not get its fair share. Perhaps that’s the reason why Raphael Trotman was removed as the Minister.

The US Ambassador slammed Guyanese who are criticizing the Exxon deal stating that Guyana will make 10.5 billion per year which is three times the current GDP. Unfortunately no official has criticized the diplomat for his unfortunate comments.

There are several highly qualified Guyanese in the diaspora who are experts in the oil/gas areas, and their opinions should be taken into consideration because they do not want the country of their birth to be taken for a ride; they are not interested in a piece of the pie at all.

Yours faithfully, Oscar Ramjeet