Eco-Waffle

Back in August, the Guardian published a piece about pollution in English rivers and groundwater. It's one of those articles which ought to have had a more precise scientific focus, but unfortunately the activist journalism takes precedence over useful data. For example, there are no graphs to show things getting better or worse over time.

 

Almost 500 chemicals found in England’s rivers and groundwater

More than half classed as very toxic, toxic or harmful to aquatic life, with 20 categorised as ‘substances of very high concern’

Almost 500 different chemicals, some of which are banned, have been found in various mixtures across all 171 river and groundwater catchments tested in England in 2024, according to data from the Environment Agency, analysed by the Guardian and Watershed Investigations.

More than half of them are classified as very toxic, toxic or harmful to aquatic life, according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), and a banned, carcinogenic “forever chemical” was among 20 “substances of very high concern” found.


Modern analytical instrumental techniques are extremely sensitive, so we need more information such as sampling data, concentrations, official limits and background information such as whether or not the data are derived from pollution incidents or continuing problems. 

This kind of thing is no good at all -

Another neonic, imidacloprid, is still legally used as a flea treatment for dogs and cats, which experts say is nonsensical.

“Imidacloprid is like novichok for insects,” said Dave Goulson, professor of biology at Sussex University.

“A single teaspoon of this pesticide is enough to deliver a lethal dose to 1.25 billion honey bees. It’s concerning that our rivers should be awash with a potent insecticide.”


It may be sarcastic to say so, but in my day we didn't measure these substances in teaspoons. What are we talking about here anyway? Teaspoons per billion tablespoons of water, per trillion tablespoons, per cubic furlong?


Sewage works could install tertiary treatment to remove many chemicals, but it is expensive.


Yes it is expensive, it's the great trade-off bogey again, so we need a competent scientific, technical and economic analysis to see it it's worth it. There may be a genuine issue here, but how is anyone outside the arm-waving fraternity supposed to penetrate the eco-waffle to find out?