Banned Pesticides In Tobacco Products – Background
The tobacco industry is extremely careful not to allow (more on that later) studies of pesticide residues on its cigarette products in any country but particularly in the US. The industry is exquisitely aware that if the extent of this chemical contamination were known, particularly the presence of multiple banned organochlorine pesticides in their products, then especially at the state and county levels public health officials and regulators would have no choice but to call an end to industry’s game.
And then there would also be a brand new basis for some hefty civil lawsuits as well as domestic and international criminal charges for everything from negligence to genocide.
About time too, don’t you think?
So here’s an outline of the issue and why I think it represents a new broad area for regulatory control of the harm being done by Tobacco products. I would love to hear from organizations with a Tobacco product control agenda who would like help in crafting a local strategy of pesticide residue identification – we have fully certified high-level labs here in Oregon with experience in Tobacco testing that are ready to help.
European regulators in several countries, notably Germany, and acting through the EU Commission as a whole, are already way ahead of the US in identifying and regulating the public health threat caused by pesticide residues in Tobacco products. But, because of the tight control that the Tobacco industry has over the US media, Americans who are casually consuming “the news” will NEVER hear about these controls on pesticide contamination. And because of the control that the Tobacco industry has over the US scientific and medical communities, you will NEVER find that anyone in the entire anti-tobacco movement has ever spent a few hundred bucks and tested some off-the-shelf Tobacco products for pesticide residues. Go ahead – Google away. It’s just not there.
Does that strike anyone other than me as a bit odd?
That tight grip on public knowledge, by the way, comes from clandestine financial controls, domination of advertising, hidden ownership of important media, and co-opted journalists at every level of every important media player. To the Tobacco industry, this is all a game-planned process.
That may sound like a cold-blooded way to refer to the slaughter of untold millions of people across generations of smokers and their families, but you can be certain that as far as the tobacco industry is concerned it’s a game, and when it comes to money they are definitely cold-blooded, and they’re playing for keeps.
The Smoking Gun
As you read this please keep in mind that all it took to bring down Al Capone was one small tax evasion charge that the feds could make stick.
So. There has only been one small study of pesticides in actual commercial cigarettes since the 1970’s, but if that study is at all representative of the state of the 2018 commercial cigarette market (parenthetical comment – it is, as you’ll see documented later) then regulators worldwide ought to be pulling cigarettes from shelves and running them through pesticide testing. Don’t you think?
I can hear the Tobacco science flacks now. “Well, that data is from 2003. That was 15 years ago. And besides those pesticides aren’t permitted on tobacco anymore.”
Oh, really?
So, you would think that if nasty old Endosulfan, Heptachlor and 4,4-DDE, and a whole lot more organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides weren’t being used on tobacco anymore then the tobacco industry scientific organization CORESTA wouldn’t be publishing “good practice” guidelines updated June 2018 that lists acceptable limits on them – right?
Well, just because the tobacco industry chooses to publish good practice limits on those banned pesticides, that doesn’t mean they are still being used – right? When you read the document it is absolutely clear – these pesticide residues are being detected in Tobacco and Tobacco products worldwide and the industry is worried enough to publish “good practice” and “stewardship” guidelines, including guidelines for dozens of pesticides that are banned because chronic exposure in any amount is hazardous – like through a few hundred puffs of Tobacco product smoke or vapor a day.
Also if you open that CORESTA link above, please notice their innocent little qualifying remark:
“The GRLs are applicable to cured tobacco leaf while focusing on processed tobacco leaf which is predominantly used for the production of traditional cigarette tobaccos and the GAPs associated with the cultivation of these tobacco types.”
In other words we are just going to ignore the issue of pesticide residues on Tobacco stems and trash, which we know are present in higher concentrations than on the leaf, because we don’t want to raise that particular issue.
How We Know Brazilian Tobacco Is Widely Contaminated
With that hidden public health issue in mind, let’s look at pesticide use on tobacco in Brazil – as good a place to start as any. We could look at dozens of other countries, but Brazil is the biggest exporter of tobacco to the US.
First, note that Brazilian tobacco uses twice as much pesticide per hectare as the next biggest user, cotton, and three times as much as soybeans. That is significant – it means that Brazilian Tobacco plants are drenched with these chemicals.
That’s how we know beyond reasonable doubt that Brazilian Tobacco waste exports to the US are contaminated, and probably very heavily contaminated. That doesn’t worry the US Tobacco companies because nobody is watching what they do except for their own people, a few corrupt officials, and some piss-ant regulations that aren’t enforced and don’t matter.
Well, OK. So tobacco uses a lot of pesticides. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are using banned pesticides, or pesticides known to be dangerous if inhaled even in small doses on a chronic basis.
That link is a pretty detailed research piece that looks at the health impact of pesticides on tobacco farmers in Brazil, and in the process it talks in detail about the pesticides they are exposed to. Of course, these are the same pesticides whose residues wind up on Brazilian tobacco. Check it out.
So, it’s clear that a great many pesticides being used on tobacco in Brazil. This isn’t the only piece of evidence, by far. When you look at all the evidence, it is clear that banned organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides are being used intensively on Brazilian tobacco as recently as early 2018.
The reason that’s important is that all of the trash from the Brazilian tobacco industry – not the tobacco leaf, but the stems and waste from the factory floors – winds up being shipped to the US for manufacturing into American cigarettes. That tobacco trash and stems is if anything more heavily contaminated with pesticides than the tobacco leaf (because it includes systemic pesticides), which is kept in Brazil and Argentina for making cigarettes out of real leaf tobacco – the kind demanded by smokers in Latin America.
The contaminated tobacco trash is sent to the US, and look who’s bringing it in. (We’ll get to why in a minute.)
That’s a whole lot of tobacco trash, isn’t it? Well, those are only the records of two shipments of toxic waste brought to the US by Big Tobacco. There are plenty more. Now, let’s talk about why they are bringing in all those tobacco stems from Brazil and other waste dumps on the planet.
How Brazilian Nerve Poisons Get Into Those Marlboros, Camels etc.
It’s really pretty simple. The tobacco industry figured out years ago that American smokers didn’t really care what they were smoking, and since the tobacco companies could sell the actual leaf to Europeans and Latin Americans who cared, why not use all those stalks and stems and trash that they were just throwing away and figure out how to make cigarettes out of it?
Here’s a short video by Philip Morris showing in detail how they take tobacco waste and turn it into cigarettes. They treat this process as though it is a miraculous achievement. While you watch how this cigarette giant makes fake tobacco for American smokers, remember those pesticide residues on those millions of pounds of Brazilian tobacco waste they’re grinding up and bragging about.
There is major deception at @ 2:11-20. Can you can spot it now that you know about the pesticide residues in that trash they’re turning into cigarettes?
At this point you may be asking what contaminated Brazilian tobacco trash has to do with where we started – banned pesticides in commercial cigarettes in Europe, including two prominent American brands.
The relevance is that the banned pesticides in those 2003 EU cigarettes got into them exactly the same way that banned pesticides are getting into every US cigarette manufactured with Brazilian tobacco stems and trash in 2018.
The tobacco stems and trash that are being exported from Brazil ( and other countries, but Brazil is the biggest US supplier) to Europe and to America are used for the same thing – to make fake tobacco cigarettes chock full of invisible poisons on that waste Tobacco just like in the Philip Morris video above. Philip Morris, RJR and the others know for a fact that their manufacturing materials are contaminated with banned toxic substances, and they may even quietly test for some of these poisons, but they have never issued a recall for a single batch of Tobacco products which they would have a positive duty to do if banned pesticide residues were detected.
So What Can Be Done?
Quite a bit, actually. In a coming post I’ll link you to peer-reviewed journal research that demonstrates the level of public health threat presented by these hidden toxic substances, and I’ll share with you the results of a little public health effort here in Portland to test off-the-shelf Tobacco products being sold locally whose origins can be traced to imported Brazilian Tobacco waste. Stay tuned for what I expect to be some interesting results.
Meanwhile if you like what I’m trying to do here, please hit that little donate button below and drop a thank you on me. I would appreciate knowing that you care about the work I’m doing.
Can you believe that RJR tried to get a tax credit for disposing of tobacco waste by processing it into cigarettes instead of dumping it in the landfill? Check it out – links to the original court case are below.
As this post is written the tobacco fields of Virginia and the Carolinas are flooded and destroyed. There are millions of pounds of waterlogged tobacco lying in mud mixed with sewage and dead pigs,the whole mess waiting to be plowed under or hauled away.
Or not. It turns out that cigarette giant RJR has a series of secret processes for making all kinds of tobacco waste into cigarettes. The tobacco farmers may be 100% wiped out, but I’ll bet RJR already has crews out there gathering up those dead stalks while they’re firing up the equipment to run that crap through their secret “G-Series” processes. More on that shortly.
But … if a few months from now that second-hand cigarette smoke drifting around on the streets suddenly starts smelling faintly like rancid pigshit with maybe a hint of faux mint you’ll know why.
Here’s the background on the secret G-Series processes that RJR doesn’t voluntarily reveal to anyone.
To Set The Scene
Picture a North Carolina courtroom in 1998. The great, all-powerful RJ Reynolds has just filed an appeal against a ruling by the North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources. And lost.
The ruling says sorry, RJR can’t classify the tobacco stems, scraps, dust and trash that it uses to manufacture its cigarette products as solid waste.
Now, doesn’t that bring up the question – why would RJR want to classify its manufacturing materials as solid waste?
It sounds like a sneaky little tax loophole but hey, if RJR wants to get a tax credit for disposing of their waste in an environmentally sound fashion, what’s the problem?
The problem is that RJ Reynolds claims it is “disposing of” this waste by manufacturing it into cigarettes, and says that qualifies it for tax breaks because the waste isn’t going into landfills. It’s being bought and smoked by their customers.
There are some really clever folks down North Carolina way.
Can’t you just see those no-neck monsters with cheap haircuts sitting around the table gloating, all fashionably attired in blue dress shirts with white collars. “Get this – we already know how to take all that trash that doesn’t cost us a dime and get a bunch of dumb fucks to pay us big bucks to smoke it, and now our lawyers are saying we’re gonna get ourselves a big tax break for making them smoke that shit and not tossing it into the landfill. Pretty damn sweet!”
The Secret G-Series Processes
What made the RJR boys giggle is that their research scientists have been really successful over decades of work in coming up with a whole series of ways to use worthless tobacco trash and waste to make cigarettes. These processes, code-named the “G Series” were a major set of developments for RJR. They form the base of a major part of their wealth, allowing them to manufacture synthetic smoking materials out of tobacco trash and recycled waste and supply it to the entire US cigarette industry. (The Europeans won’t touch this shit.)
Here’s a quick look at some of the code-named RJR projects to develop processes for turning trash into cigarettes.
The RJR G-Series Codes
Internal Identification Codes for G-Processed Tobaccos follow this pattern:
G__-nnL = base for item id.
G = is a number for the process
Nn i= a number for a specific version
L = a letter for a modification
The G-Code Family
G7, G16, and G17 series codes refer to reconstituted tobacco processes while G13, G14 and G18 refer to expanded tobacco processes. G15 series refers to pectin release cast sheets.
G-Code Examples:
G7-A Ammoniated tobacco sheet developed in response to Marlboro (RJR, 1991b).
G7AE Ammonia applied to the G7 extract prior to making the reconstituted sheet (Gignac et al, 1988).
G7-10B 1.2% DAP Treated G7-1 Sheet
G7-DAP Evaluate DAP for improving the taste of G7A (RJR, 1989b).
RJR’s “Toxic Waste Into Cigarettes” Court Case – The Smoking Gun
The “Toxic Waste Into Cigarettes” case number is no. COA01-74 in the North Carolina Court of Appeals filed: 19 February 2002. The full text of the case and the court’s ruling is available at
The basic idea is that since RJ Reynolds is disposing of millions of pounds of waste every year by making it into cigarettes and selling them to American smokers rather than dumping all that waste in a landfill, the company therefore deserves a tax break for being good environmental stewards. The testimony of RJR and others recorded in this lawsuit reveals information about how RJ Reynolds manufactures its products that ought to give any cigarette smoker, and any regulator, and any jury, cause to realize the extent of the knowingly deceptive and harmful practices of this cigarette giant.
The only reason all this doesn’t set off alarm bells is that the so-called “tobacco” industry has spent (quite literally) billions of dollars on social conditioning so that your reaction on reading anything negative about cigarettes is very likely “So what – I know all that. I’m tired of hearing about it. It’s old news.”
If you think those ideas are your own, think again. They are implanted.
But really consider the evidence, so cleverly hidden in plain sight, and it becomes compelling and conclusive even in partial outline. Sooner or later the cigarette industry is going to have to answer for this hidden but discernible criminal conspiracy against humanity, which is of a magnitude and horror that makes it virtually incomprehensible even to thoughtful minds. And that, of course, is exactly the idea.
The Evidence
Here are a few of the details directly from the court papers from COA01-74 North Carolina:
In manufacturing tobacco products, Reynolds does buy tobacco leaves at auction. The tobacco is sent to a stemmery, where the stems (hard, woody part of the leaf) are separated from the lamina portion of the leaf (material in between the stems). The separation process also generates small scraps of tobacco (scraps) and very fine scraps of tobacco (dust). The usable tobacco lamina material is sent to the manufacturing operation where it is blended and becomes part of what winds up as a cigarette.
The stems, scraps and dust are packed into containers and sent to a storage facility until they are either processed into reconstituted sheet tobacco, through related treatments known as the G-Series processes, or are discarded. The reconstituted sheet tobacco is shredded and blended with the processed lamina strips and made into filler for cigarettes. The reconstituted tobacco filler is part of most brands of cigarettes made by Reynolds, and enables cigarettes to be made with lower tar and nicotine content which according to Reynolds has been “demanded by smoking consumers”.
Reynolds uses approximately seventy million pounds of tobacco stems, scrap and dust each year in making reconstituted sheet tobacco for its own use, and many millions more for other manufacturers. Reynolds also disposes of between five and seven million pounds of tobacco waste materials in landfills each year. This material is of a lower quality than the stems, scrap and dust used in the G-Series processes; much of it is generated by the manufacturing process, rather than the stemmery, though some tobacco waste generated by the stemmery is also disposed of.
In order to keep up with its production requirements for reconstituted tobacco, Reynolds imports tobacco stems purchased overseas. For example, in 2006 (the latest year for which US Government data is available), the US imported 136.8 Million pounds of Tobacco stems. In other words, there weren’t nearly enough stems being produced from US tobacco for the manufacturers to use in making their products. These manufacturers, on the other hand, would probably say “Well, Tobacco stems are still real Tobacco, so what’s the big deal?” The big deal of course is that many of the most dangerous pesticides used on tobacco overseas (like slug and snail control chemicals) are taken up from soil application into the roots and stems, and others translocate from the leaf where they are sprayed into the stems and stalks.
Reynolds sells reconstituted tobacco to other manufacturers of tobacco products, and manufactures reconstituted sheet tobacco for other tobacco manufacturers, using stems, scraps and dust supplied by them. As you can read in the case file, one of Reynolds’ witnesses testified that even if there were no tax incentives for recycling and resource recovery of or from solid waste, “Reynolds would still operate the G-7 process because of its cost-effectiveness.”
While it’s bad enough that this corporation wants tax breaks for selling waste to its customers, what isn’t revealed here is that this “tobacco” waste is highly contaminated with toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic and endocrine-disrupting agricultural chemicals and pesticides. That single sentence “In order to keep up with its production requirements for reconstituted tobacco, Reynolds imports tobacco stems purchased overseas” holds the clue. When you look at where RJ Reynolds buys its tons of waste overseas you find that it is coming from countries that have absolutely no regulations on pesticide and other toxic chemical use on tobacco crops. This means that the waste that RJ Reynolds is putting in its cigarettes, and that Reynolds is selling to other cigarette manufacturers as reconstituted “sheet” contains high levels of pesticides that are totally banned for use on any crop in the US.
Many of these chemicals are known carcinogens, they are known to destroy nervous systems, they are known to produce deformed babies, and they are known to produce a range of debilitating and fatal diseases in humans. Furthermore, carefully-done research studies show that many of these pesticides, especially the more recent chemicals that attack DNA and other genetic materials in insects, are far more dangerous to children, young women, and the unborn in every population, and to people with Latin, Native American, Asian or African biological ancestry, than they are to adult Caucasian males. That explains why pesticide residues in cigarettes “aren’t a problem” for the white guys running the so-called “tobacco” industry.
RJ Reynolds and all the others could choose to manufacture their cigarette brands from pure tobacco leaf grown in the US or even other countries under strict pesticide regulations. The reason they choose to pack their products with toxic waste instead is because it is so profitable to do so, and because nobody has called any of them on the practice.
RJR Lost That One
As it happened, not so fast smart guys. The North Carolina judge actually ruled that time even the mighty RJR legal department had gone too far. The judge said no, the Dept. of Environment & Natural Resources is right, and you can’t claim a tax credit for disposing of your toxic waste by getting your customers to smoke it. Boo Hoo. RJR lost that one – or did they?
They didn’t get a tax credit for making people smoke their waste instead of polluting the landfill with it, but I’m betting that what the engineer says in the court testimony remains true – “it’s so profitable that even if they don’t get a tax break they’ll still use G-7”.
I can’t tell whether or not RJR is still using any of its patented “G-Series” processes in 2018 for disposing of toxic waste by making it into cigarettes and telling smokers they’re getting “true tobacco taste” or “natural tobacco”, or something equally deceptive. However, RJR is the biggest supplier of tobacco “sheet” to other manufacturers, and appears to be the biggest importer of tobacco waste for that purpose, so my guess is that the “G-Series” is not only alive and well (unlike smokers) but flourishing (also unlike smokers).
So just to see what’s happening these days I’ve just filed a FOIA request for the USDA records that cover the $2 Billion worth of tobacco stems and trash imported in 2017. These records will show every US company that imported this toxic waste, the waste’s country of origin, and the importer’s certification for each shipment that it isn’t contaminated with residues of any banned pesticide like dioxin or DDT.
Update (10/30/18) – no need to file a FOIA request – all the data on tobacco waste imports by American ‘tobacco’ companies that make that waste into cigarettes is right here.
It turns out that RJR is NOT the biggest importer of tobacco waste for cigarette manufacturing – that honor goes to Philip Morris as you can see if you click here.
Now if you would like to see a short video by Philip Morris that explains how they turn waste into cigarettes,click here. Just keep in mind that they slip the Big Lie in at about 2:11 into the video.
That’s all they have to do to import those millions of pounds of toxic waste they’re going to make into cigarettes. They just sign and go, and nobody ever checks again. That may change.
A little donation would go a long way toward supporting my efforts here.
Thanks.
I’ll share the results of this FOIA inquiry in another blog post.
My friend and long-time collaborator Peter and I spent many years working together developing multiple clean water project proposals, as well as several innovative biogas proposals, that for one reason or another were never funded. This was a labor of love and even though these projects never saw the light of day we still believe that they incorporate both technologies and implementation models that offer a viable alternative to the kind of high-dollar mega-projects that international “aid” organizations love, and that almost always fail and leave the people worse off than before they were “aided”.
(As a frame of reference, Peter and I are the principals of “AF&T” referred to in the text below, which stands for “Alternative Fuels & Technologies”.)
What follows is the technical description of such a project, which we developed in 2012 in response to a request from friends and former colleagues in Serbia. Although this project was never funded, it is still a highly viable model for rural development of clean water resources, and could be implemented at any time. Each of our projects was accompanied by detailed financial analysis – if the project didn’t show a positive bottom line after making highly conservative revenue projections and deliberately high cost/expense projections, we didn’t consider it viable.
Our guiding principle was and is: a good project not only has to be innovative; it has to work technically and financially.
My purpose in publishing this Serbia water resource project narrative on panaceachronicles.com is because, although the core topic of this blog is the celebration of the great natural medicine Coca, and its companion healing plant Cannabis, I believe that readers who care about Coca and Cannabis may also care about making the world a better place and be interested in examining alternative, potentially viable ways of doing so.
If this includes you, I hope that you enjoy reading through our little plan for rural Serbia. In the following weeks I will be posting several other, each quite unique water resource development plans for the Dominican Republic and for Sri Lanka.
Background
Serbia is a country rich in natural resources and its agricultural sector is an important contributor to the overall economy. Alternative Fuels & Technologies (AF&T) is prepared to deliver a unique set of local solutions that help solve among the greatest of Serbia’s environmental challenges, the pollution of ground and surface waters by both natural and man-made contaminants that have, in many places, rendered the water unfit and dangerous for human consumption.
In addition, AF&T offers these solutions based on an integrated system of proprietary, proven technologies and methods that are designed to be manufactured in Serbia, by Serbians, for the benefit of Serbia. As a result business model addresses water quality issues utilizing an innovative approach by not imposing mega-engineering solutions that have a long history of failure in Serbia, but by implementing a micro-solution at the level where it matters most – the individual drawing a fresh glass of water to drink, or making a pot of tea with clean, uncontaminated water.
The proposal is introduce and gain acceptance for a scalable, low-cost, low technology modular water purification system in Serbia. Unlike many previous attempts to assist Serbian towns and villages in dealing with this multi-faceted problem by designing and installing large, expensive engineering solutions that have a long history of repeated, costly failures, we propose to approach the issue by taking small, incremental steps using an appropriate technology that can be scaled up as its performance and cost-effectiveness have been completely demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction. As we discuss in Appendix One, perhaps the greatest obstacle to any new development project is the legacy of failed projects that have preceded it, and the way to overcome that challenge, we believe, is to identify why the previous projects failed and why the proposed project is not vulnerable to this source of failure.
We believe that we have identified the principal cause of previous failures of water projects in not just in one town but country-wide, and we further believe that our approach addresses this issue. Rather than beginning with a focus just on municipalities and their large scale, complex needs, we propose to begin by also placing a number of these systems five distinct types of environments.
Small villages of between 100-300 people on the outskirts of towns that have severe water quality issues and where water is sourced principally from wells.
A single 500 litre/day unit provides drinking water for 50 adults. So one unit will be installed per 50 adults in the village
Households with children or individuals at risk in towns that have severe municipal water quality issues, concentrating on apartment-dwelling households.
An apartment building with 10-12 families of 4 people each could be served by one 500 litre/day unit, so we will identify buildings that meet that criterion
Small food-related businesses such as cafes and restaurants in towns where municipal water quality is a severe restraint on preparing quality foods and beverages
Depending upon the customer count, one or two 500 litre/day units could serve the needs of many small establishments; we will give preference to establishments that can be served by a single unit
Institutions in towns that serve populations at risk from polluted municipal water such as schools and clinics
Approximately one 500 litre/day unit per 50-75 children, depending on the age of the school population and the number of adult teachers etc. We will identify schools/clinics that can be served by a maximum of two units
Animal/poultry producing farms already practicing organic agriculture or transitioning to organic agriculture who will most readily recognize the importance of pure water for producing quality product.
We will select small operations that will require no more than two or three 500 litres/day units although, if desirable for demonstration purposes, we can scale up the technology to produce up to 5000 litres/day per unit to serve larger ( but still modest-sized) animal/poultry production farms..
We propose to place demonstration systems in each of these five kinds of locations, and to track the impact of the systems on the health and quality of life of the people using appropriate measuring procedures. We will engage the appropriate human resources to track and document these impacts, including health and environmental personnel. This effort will be coordinated by XXXX which has set up dozens of similar tracking and documenting systems in many countries using local public service, NGO and government personnel.
For residents of small villages whose well water is currently heavily contaminated with both natural and chemical/industrial/faecal pollutants, being able to remove these pollutants at the household level represents a winning strategy for individual families. The small village environment is an excellent platform for demonstrating the benefits of a simple technology that will be seen in improved health, improved environmental quality, and improved quality of life. For residents of urban apartment buildings, having easy access to clean water for drinking and cooking without having to go to a store to buy bottled water will not only be a convenience, it will be a cost-savings. For restaurants and cafes, many of whom probably already have some kind of means of purifying their water, the system that we will offer will have superior performance and customer service advantages. Likewise for schools and clinics – whatever their current system for treating their water, the chemical-free technology that we will install as part of the demonstration project will be experienced as superior. And finally, for small farms, especially those that are currently organic or that are trying to convert to the higher value organic sector, having an on-farm system that is minimal maintenance and that does not require chemicals to purify their water will be a welcome option.
When coupled with our strategy for placing demonstration units in key areas in the municipalities, including apartment buildings, small food producing businesses like cafes, as well as institutions like schools or clinics, we believe that we will have excellent coverage for a comprehensive, believable demonstration for a sustainable, affordable solution for both individual households and for communities as well
Service Delivery Strategies
Each type of placement of the demonstration units will call for a unique service delivery strategy. Ultimately each strategy will be determined by the circumstances prevailing at the sites that are selected. However, it is possible to speculate on what strategies are most likely to be effective for each type of site.
Small Village Placement
This placement is potentially the most vulnerable to abuse if the water tank is in a public area, with some people taking more than their daily allotment. One approach might be to provide each household with a distinctive water bottle that holds an easily manageable amount of water, and then count on social pressure to note when someone is making more than their share of trips to obtain water. An alternative would be to place an attendant at the site and to pay for the attendant by imposing a small charge per fill-up that falls well within the “Winningness To Pay” guidelines established by EU research. This would have the additional virtue of paying for a person to perform the minimal daily maintenance functions needed to keep the system operating at peak efficiency ( no more than a few minutes a day.)
Urban Apartment Building placement
If we select apartment buildings with resident managers it could easily be the managers responsibility to ensure both compliance with the per-person daily limit and to perform the minimal maintenance required. This could be paid for by a small rent surcharge that falls well within the “Willingness To Pay” parameters established by EU research, which would be monitored to ensure that residents we not being over-charged.
Urban Food Business placement
Since the maintenance of the system requires no more than a few minutes a day, this task could easily be assigned to an employee or performed by management
Urban Institutional placement
Since the maintenance of the system requires no more than a few minutes a day, this task could easily be assigned to an employee or performed by management
Rural Small Organic Farm placement
Since the maintenance of the system requires no more than a few minutes a day, this task could easily be assigned to an employee or performed by management
Phase One
We have identified six towns in Vojvodina where there are well-documented, severe water quality problems, both within the municipality and in the community of villages surrounding the municipality. These six towns, identified in a 2007 research publication as towns where “it is illegal for residents to drink water from the municipal system”. (“Pollution Of Water Resources In Vojvodina”, Geographica Timisiensis, vol. 20, No. 2, 2011 (pp. 5-12 ). Our initial six target communities, identified in this research publication, and Zrenjanin, Melene, Elemic, Taras, Aradac and Klek. It is from the cluster of villages around each of these six municipalities that we will select one or two villages as our beginning targets. We have developed a simple list of criteria for selecting our target villages, including evidence of a community will to improve water quality, typicality of the community’s demographics, characteristics of the water quality problem the community faces, and effective community-level leadership.
We will also work with the health authorities and community leadership in each of the towns where we have placement in surrounding villages to identify a set of at-risk families (young children, elderly living alone, household with serious illness, etc), as well as critical locations such as schools, hospitals, and cafes/restaurants where a number of demonstration units can be placed and monitored for results. Our going-in assumption is that we will be placing only our 500 Litre/Day capacity units. In instances where larger units make more sense, they will be provided since the system can be easily scaled up or down. In either case, the appropriate units will be placed, the recipients familiarized with their operation and maintenance, and the progress of the demonstration followed by XXXX and AF&T. When appropriate, testimonials will be solicited and individual results documented.
We will manufacture these units in Serbia by contracting for the basic structure of the system and by importing some of the other components including the filters, the ozonation system, and other components. Final assembly will be performed by contracted skilled labor.
Phase Two
After the introduction and demonstration of these systems in Phase One, we propose to set up one or more Serbian-owned licensed manufacturers of these systems to perform the full manufacturing operation and to work with these manufacturers to promote widespread adoption of the systems in increasingly larger communities. Since the technology we will introduce is scalable from the household to the small community level, this will be a seamless transition, designed to gain acceptance and endorsement at each step before the next step is taken. Ultimately we propose to transition to a second technology designed to stop a major source of water pollution, the under-treatment or lack of treatment of municipal sewage wastes, which will be described in a second briefing paper; one better adapted to function at the level of larger communities, but founded on the success of these smaller systems.
We believe that this entry strategy, beginning with a low-cost, low-maintenance, individually-operated technology represents a long term, if ultimately only an interim solution to the problem of supplying clean drinking and cooking water to the hundreds of small villages and larger towns in Northern Serbia currently suffering severe health and quality of life issues due to the failures of past decades of environmental management, that will take additional decades to remediate.
Both the surface and ground water in the Vojvodina region of Serbia are so heavily contaminated with human and animal faecal matter, naturally-occurring mineralization including a range of toxic compounds, and petrochemical/industrial waste that in many of the major towns and most of the surrounding villages (with shallow wells) the water is literally unsafe for drinking and cooking purposes, and is a particular hazard when used to prepare formula for infants or food for children. In many locations public water supplies as well as private wells are also a health hazard for bathing and for use on crops. (See Appendix 1 for details)
The systems that we will begin with are sized to process sufficient contaminated water to produce 500 Litres of pure high quality drinking water/day. They require no operator attention, and owner-maintenance is minimal. The same is true of any scaled-up larger systems that we may elect to supply to selected in-town locations.
This water purification system, designed and manufactured by XXXX is specifically designed to operate without external power, in conditions of very poor water quality, with a long working life, and the system has low maintenance requirements. Manufacturers of the filtration and oxidation components of the system certify the ability of the system, designed to operate entirely “off the grid”*, to remove 100% of particulate matter and to eliminate 100% of bacteria, protozoa and viruses that are the primary concern of Serbian health authorities water, along with a wide range of common organic toxins like arsenic and lead, which are ubiquitous in the groundwater of Northern Serbia, as well as a wide range of industrial chemicals that are present as a result of decades of mismanagement in the chemical and petroleum industries both in Northern Serbia and up-aquifer from Northern Serbia in Romania. (See Appendix 2 for details)
*The “Off-Grid DC power is supplied by a small solar array; however, an AC power connection wired for the specific needs of local power users can also be integrated into any system.
These initial villages and in-town locations will be selected in order to provide as wide a cross-section as possible of potential system users in multiple locations and under multiple sets of operating conditions. Because the systems will be provided to this initial group at no cost, the quid pro quo will be their participation in a detailed study of the impact of the availability of pure water on their business.
Phase Three
Once these initial users experience the improvement in the quality and heath benefits of clean, filtered water, AF&T, APF and FLAG International will leverage that initial acceptance to make these systems more broadly available by partnering with one or more micro-lending organizations to provide a wide range residents, businesses, institutions and farms with affordable access to pure water.
Once initial acceptance of the system is established, AF&T, XXXX will identify an in-country organization such as a cooperative or non-profit organization that includes women in its leadership and membership and empower that organization to become the licensed manufacturer of this system for Serbia. AF&T, XXXX will provide business start-up and development services for the selected organization(s) as well as ongoing mentoring services. This business will generate revenues from both sales and leasing, and will generate recurring revenues from providing regular annual system maintenance and providing parts for system owners to do their own maintenance. All parties to the program will work to ensure that there is a smooth flow of the needed parts to the in-country manufacturer, distributor, and maintenance provider for the network of larger water purification systems.
We believe that because residents of many if not most towns and villages in the Vojvodina region and elsewhere in Serbia must currently purchase potable water that cash flow can, if we and our Serbian partners approach our demonstration and marketing jobs properly, be diverted to the lease/purchase of in-home and in-business water filtration systems at no net additional expense for most people. Further, with its ability to generate 500 litres/day of pure, potable water that would in a few days make the monthly payment on a household system, many people will understand that ownership of a system will mean a net gain in their access to clean, multi-use water and not simply a one-for-one exchange from purchased drinking water.
AF&T and XXXX will enter into the appropriate agreements with XXXX to provide a continuing supply of all parts for the system, as well as all required technical and management training to enable the selected organization to become a sustainable business. Since multiple systems are part of the available technology, from small household systems to institutional and community-sized systems, this will be a significant business opportunity for the selected group.
In addition to establishing a micro-lending relationship to enable consumer and business purchase of these systems, we will also begin a CrowdSourcing funding effort to raise funds to underwrite the purchase of these systems by individual families who cannot afford even a micro-loan purchase. A second important focus of the CrowdSourcing initiative will be to provide funds to underwrite the acquisition of larger community-sized systems in those situations where purchase of such a system would be an impediment.
Three organizations are entering into this proposal. The developer and owner of world rights to the system is XXXX with headquarters in XXXX and manufacturing facilities in China PRC. XXXX will manufacture and provide the initial systems for this program, with funding for the initial acquisition provided by UNDP. This will enable the program to place a number of these systems in the hands of selected Phase One Demonstration Villages and towns without the need for financial commitment on their part.
XXXX the manufacturer and system integrator, will utilize the internet to work with AF&T and XXXX, both on the ground in Serbia, to provide technical consulting services to trainers and adopters throughout the program as needed. XXXX may decide take on additional roles in the project, which will be determined by discussions between all principals involved.
XXXX will provide Alternative Fuels & Technologies of Rollingsford, New Hampshire (AF&T), with an exclusive license to represent their products in Serbia. AF&T and XXXX will coordinate with in-country NGO’s that may want to utilize these water filtration systems in their own programs. AF&T and XXXX will also have primary responsibility for initiating replication of the program in other developing countries that UNDP designates as market targets, coordinating at every step with XXXX and as well as UNDP.
As mentioned above, as a condition of receiving the systems and training in their use at no cost village and town residents and operators of small businesses such as cafes in the villages and towns, will have to agree to participate in detailed follow-up studies designed to document the value of these systems to the end-users both in terms of increased household health, improved taste of the water, improved cooking results when using the water, improved taste of brewed beverages such as tea and coffee, and other benefits that they may enjoy, such as healthier animals and better results in household gardens. By documenting this information, coming from people who have been selected because their problems and their environment are representative of hundreds of similar communities, support for the roll-out of the system on both commercial and philanthropic levels will be enhanced.
After this initial stage, the roll-out of additional systems will be market driven through purchases and, to the extent possible, through CrowdSourced funding rather than through UNDP underwriting. Once the value of these systems has been demonstrated by the reactions of the initial users and their customers, we believe that others will want to have these systems, both for commercial and household purposes, and we will be prepared to facilitate that demand through our arrangements with micro-lending NGOs as well as through our CrowdSourcing program.
The initial selection and training of Serbian manufacturing partners on the ground in Serbia will be conducted by AF&T and XXXXwho will also be the leads in providing technical and management training for the selected in-country manufacturing organization. XXXX will provide AF&T with the necessary licensing agreements for in-country manufacturing, and will maintain the component supply chain to service the manufacturing organization. XXXX will have primary responsibility for follow-up and evaluation of the initial “demonstration village & town” stage of the program, as well as the roll-out to other end-users. This will include surveying system users to determine their level of satisfaction with the benefits to their families, as well as providing reports on the performance of the systems under the range of conditions in which the systems will be functioning.
AF&T, XXXX and XXXXwill also coordinate with in-country NGO’s that may want to utilize these water purification systems in their own programs. AF&T will also have primary responsibility for initiating replication of the program in other developing countries that UNDP designates as market targets, coordinating at every step with XXXXand XXXX as well as UNDP.
How XXXX Will Support In-Country Manufacturing
The XXXX System has been engineered to allow a progressive manufacturing/assembly ramp using a mix of in-country and imported components. Simple manufacturing processes and techniques can be employed to produce the in-country components within the allowable specifications which ensures proper operation of the overall system once assembled. Not only will this promote direct involvement by the local manufacturing base thereby stimulating the economy in a sustainable way through a recurring revenue model, it provides the region with a sense of ownership within the products they are using.
XXXX will support this initial introduction of key component manufacturing into the local economy by providing AF&T with the necessary engineering drawings and specifications, and by working with XXXX trainers to ensure full technology transfer. XXXX will also work with AF&T and UNDP to qualify the manufacturing company personnel in the production of the appropriate components and the integration of outside-sourced components. Additional training in the areas of assembly technique, quality control, and materials management can conducted in association with XXXX’s trainers.
The initial manufacturing will task will be to produce the plastic collection and holding tanks along with their supporting structure. The holding tanks are typically a plastic molded component and require the services of at least a single molding factory as well as several supporting factories associated with the construction of the necessary mold and the molds maintenance. These tanks are simple molds, well within the capability of a small plastics container manufacturer in a developing country. In addition to sourcing the tanks, the in-country manufacturer will coordinate with AF&T and XXXX to set up a JIT system of shipping the critical parts for the system to the assembly/manufacturing facility. In addition to manufacturing/assembly of systems this facility can serve as a distribution center as well as a parts and maintenance warehouse.
Production of the supporting structure for the tanks requires common low-technology manufacturing practices for metal structural fabrication. XXXX will supply AF&T with engineering drawings to support the local effort to fabricate a ridged structure capable of supporting the holding tanks in their operating condition. Additional support for sustainability includes assistance in materials and components development, and assistance with shipping and installation, both available as needed for the development of the local manufacturing and service capability.
SYSTEM COSTS AND BENEFITS
A core purpose of our proposed demonstration is to document that given the nature of the contaminants in both surface a ground water, and the hazardous nature of many public water supply systems in Vojvodina, an approach that focuses on providing small-scale distributed technology for removing almost all known contaminants (See Appendix 1) at an initial cost of @ $125/person for a system with a 10-20 year working life and annual maintenance/replacement parts cost of @ $25/person is far cheaper than a high technology, single system to provide safe water for an entire community at a cost of millions. In addition, with a single system, failure of the system puts the whole community at risk; whereas with a highly decentralized system of units each providing pure water for 50 people/day, failures (if they did occur) would affect only small clusters of people and could be addressed effectively within 24 hours by simply replacing the failed part or the whole system.
As it turns out we do have a way to estimate the value of the benefits of access to safe, clean, good-tasting drinking, brewing and cooking water in Vojvodina. In an 80 page, highly detailed 2004 study by Radmilo Pešic and Jochem Jantzen of TME, The Institute for Applied Environmental Economics, University of Belgrade, College of Agriculture, Dept. of Agricultural Economics entitled “Assessment Of The Economic Value Of Environmental Degradation In Serbia”, we find in-depth documentation of the costs of many different kinds of environmental pollution, including several chapters on the costs of the economic damage of water pollution.
The analysis is sophisticated and complex, and we will not attempt to present all the findings here. However, a few selected quotes are relevant to the issue of the potential acceptance of the benefits of the approach that we are proposing.
“ 4.4.1 Introduction
Especially in Vojvodina groundwater resources are depleted due to overexploitation and pollution.
Therefore, in many cases groundwater cannot anymore be withdrawn from the first aquifer, but
need to be withdrawn from deeper aquifers.
This is not only a loss of resources, but also poses a (drinking)water quality problem, as the
concentrations of Arsenic are elevated (in 22% of samples). Also Mercury (47% of samples) and
Cadmium (25% of samples) show concentrations above standards. So the second aquifer is not
always well suited to produce drinking water (but also using it for irrigation will lead in the long
term to accumulation of heavy metals in soils and the food chain).
“ 4.4.2 Methodology
To value this damage to the groundwater resources an estimate has been made of the amount of
water that cannot anymore be withdrawn from the first aquifer, and the price of production of
drinking water has been applied to this.
“ 4.4.3 Estimated damage to groundwater resources in Vojvodina
The total amount of groundwater that is affected is estimated as follows:
– the total annual groundwater extraction in Vojvodina (6 m3/second), which results in an
annual production of 189 million cubic meters;
– 57% of groundwater needs to withdrawn from the second aquifer;
– this results in a total annual loss of groundwater resources from the first aquifer of 107 million
cubic meter water annually.
The cost of production of (high quality) drinking water is not precisely known. Therefore, we have
taken the price of water in Belgrade for consumers7 as an indication of the minimum damage
value, being € 0.30 per cubic meter (20 dinars). The high estimate is estimated to be 2 times
higher, € 0.60 per cubic meter (which is still less than 50% of the unit costs as estimated by TME
for the Netherlands (see annex 2))
This results in an annual estimated damage due to the depletion of groundwater resources in
Vojvodina of at least € 32.4 million annually, and a maximal damage of € 64.7 million.
As we were only able to assess damages in Vojvodina, it can be anticipated that the total damage
to groundwater resources in Serbia will be larger
“ 4.6 Alternative approach to assess the damages of water pollution in Serbia
As we have applied a different methodology than in the study on the “Benefits of the
environmental acquis for Accession countries” (Ecotec, 2000), it is interesting to see how our
estimate would compare to an estimate using the Ëcotec” methodology (see for detailed
description of the Ecotec methodology, Ecotec, 2000, p. 173 – 193). This method tries to link
results of Willingness to Pay studies in various countries to the Central and Eastern European
Countries. As it assesses the Willingness to Pay for improvements (but no total abolishment of
pollution) results do not necessarily reflect the total damage of depleted water quality.
In the Ecotec approach three types of benefits of water management have to be assessed:
– to drinking water;
– to recreational use of water;
– to non user value of rivers and lakes.
The Willingness to Pay for improved (high quality) water supply is estimated by taking average
UK and US WTP-figures (per household € 25 – € 650 per year), apply a PPP correction (resulting
in € 3,38 – € 60 per household per year for Serbia), and estimate the share of the affected
households (25% in Serbia, 623,000). This results in total annual benefits of € 2.1 million to € 71.4
million.”
NOTE: This analysis concerns the “Willingness To Pay” for environmental initiatives to improve the water supply, not the amount that residents of Vojvodina might be willing to pay for personal access to clean, unpolluted drinking water. However the entire study, only a small portion of which is cited above, makes it clear that there is a virtually universal awareness of the poor and even hazardous quality of water in Vojvodina, which bodes well for the acceptance of our approach and our technology once it has been effectively demonstrated and understood.
APPENDIX ONE: THE TALE OF ONE TOWN & SURROUNDING VILLAGES
Zrenjanin, Serbia, is located in the eastern Vojvodina region of Northern Serbia. It is a pretty town of @ 73,000 people in the town proper, with a population of @ 123,000 when considering the surrounding dozens of small villages. It is the 3rd largest town in Vojvodina, and the 6th largest ton in Serbia.
The number of households according to the (most recent available) census in 2002, is 46,375, while in the town alone there are about 35,000 of them. Average number of household members, according to the same census, in the municipality as a whole, is 2.99 and in the town itself 2.78. Most numerous are those households which have 4 members – 11,568. Total number of apartments in Zrenjanin Municipality is about 33,000. According to these numbers, which may be outdated but which appear from other indicators not to have changed very much, a large majority of the households in Zrenjanin are apartment-dwellers. Of 35,000 households there are 33,000 apartments, and of 35,000 households there are 11,568 with 4 (or more) residents. A total of 4 or more residents in a household implies families with children.
In 2007 health authorities declared it illegal for residents to drink the water from the Zrenjanin municipal system. Zrenjanin is only one of a number of Serbian towns whose water has been declared illegal for humans to consume – others include Melene, Elemic, Taras, Aradac and Klek. (NOTE: Our plan is to address this broad issue by identifying one or two villages in the municipal area surrounding each of these towns and then to work from the periphery toward the center once the household technology has proven itself affordable and effective.)
In the introduction to a 213 page planning document “Municipality Of Zrenjanin: Sustainable Development Strategy With Action Plan Of Realization For 2006-2008”, the major had this to say to the citizens:
“This document is a long- term projection of the development of our Municipality, with a vision of Zrenjanin Municipality as it should be in 2013.”
“Our wish is that, starting from what we are, our values and advantages, we ourselves create conditions for a sustainable development of Zrenjanin, our villages and local government according to our needs.”
“Our common need is to live a nicer, better and safer life. To have, as many carefree children, as possible. To create conditions for elderly people to live decently out of their pensions, because they had deserved that .To give jobs to all unemployed people. To make factory workshops full again and to produce more and more. To give good earnings to the employed, so that they can satisfy their own needs and the needs of their families. To supply our citizens with healthy drinking water. To preserve nature at Carska Bara and to make good use of it in sustainable way. To attract more and more tourists, because we have things to offer. To improve life in the country. To reconstruct old and build new roads and residential buildings. To finish a detour and to displace transit traffic out of the town center. To make our Municipality the most beautiful and the cleanest in Vojvodina. To turn problems with waste materials into a serious project. To bring back life into the Begej and to filter all waste water.”
There is a long history of attempts by both domestic and foreign engineering firms to develop solutions for the delivery of quality water to the town of Zrenjanin ( see pp. 50-52 of planning document). All have failed, each for its own reasons. Sometimes the technology was inadequate to deal with the challenging chemistry of the water, and sometimes the solution worked but was too expansive and unsustainable.
There are 17 villages within the boundaries of Zrenjanin municipality, and every one has longstanding unsolved water quality issues. (NOTE: Our proposal is to begin by addressing the water problem in one or two of these villages rather than beginning with the municipality itself.)
A few excerpts from the 2005 planning document illustrate the nature and depth of the water quality problem facing Zrenjanin and the surrounding villages.
“ Dominant types of polluting matters that endanger the quality of ground waters correspond to the dominant economic activities (grouped and scattered polluters) performed on the territory of our Municipality, therefore it could be concluded that in the ground waters the traces of both present and past economic activities may be found, through cooling, sanitary and technological waters, i.e. various kinds of organic an inorganic matters, suspended and mechanical particles, hard metals, detergents, colours, solvents, pesticides etc.The pollution of ground waters due to the fecal sewage system waters is not to be neglected since Aleksandrovo canal shows the large concentrations of pollution and total inability of self-cleaning.” (page 99)
“When it comes to the issue of the quality of drinking water which is used for the supplying of Zrenjanin, it should be said that this water has exceptionally complex physical-chemical composition. The consequence of this is that the quality of deep waters of the North and Middle Banat has never met many of the criteria of the Regulations of Hygienic standards of drinking water.
“According to the findings of the Department of Health Care, during a continual one year monitoring 2002/2003 and also later up to now, it was concluded that drinking water used in Zrenjanin does not satisfy hygienic standards due to its physical-chemical characteristics, i.e.
Inappropriate organoleptic features (colour, smell, taste),
A high content of resolved salts,
A high content of organic materia,
The increased levels of ammoniac, manganese, iron and arsine.
“Microbiological indicators correspond to the analyses performed so far because the percentage of the analyses with unsatisfying findings is between 15-25%. The most frequent causes of this low quality are saprophytes bacteria. The characteristics of water supply pipes, the way of disinfection, together with specific water supplying all result in the above mentioned microbiologically unsatisfying results.” (page 97)
As mentioned above, there have been decades of failed attempts to solve these problems on a grand scale, but never before – to the best of our knowledge – has the “micro-approach” that we propose been tried, nor have any of the past projects incorporated an in-country manufacturing, distribution and sales component that benefits the economy of the region and the country as a whole. For these reasons we believe that, in spite of a long and disappointing history of outside firms coming into their community with proposed solutions, the leadership and people of the communities where we propose to begin may be willing to give this approach a try. Our guess is that they really have no other effective options before them.
It may be useful to review what the planners and authorities in one Serbian town, Zrenjanin, see as the history of failure of “big water” projects in their community, on the assumption that many if not most Serbian communities will have a similar story to tell, and a similar legacy for us to overcome. The following passages come from pages 50-52 of the planning document “Municipality Of Zrenjanin: Sustainable Development Strategy With Action Plan Of Realization For 2006-2008”
“The first research projects at discovering suitable technology for acquiring drinking water of good quality, were started in 1975 by the Slovenian firm “SOP KRŠKO“ together with the Austrian firm “Owerhof“ from Vienna.
“Research activities at the “pilot “ continued for almost three years, but suggested solution required a very large consumption of chemicals, so that it did not get the consent from the Revision Board from the School of Civil Engineering in Belgrade, and this technology was given up.
“The second “pilot research” was done by the French firm “DEGREMON” from Paris in 1981. According to suggested technology, the following phases of water treatment were anticipated: aeration, pre-ozoning, flocculation at pulsators, sand filtration, ozoning, filtration at active carbon, reservoir of clean water.
“This technological solution got the consent from Revision Board from the School of Civil Engineering in Belgrade and they got down to work on the conceptional project and on the main project titled Plants for drinking water processing. This job was done by the Institute for waterpower engineering “Jaroslav Černi “ from Belgrade. During the drawing up of the main project and acquiring all approvals from Zrenjanin Municipal Assembly, the decision was made on forming «a water factory in construction» and the Assembly got down to work on the realization of this project: a lot was bought up, a fence was put up around the construction site, a choice concerning the equipment suppliers was made,etc..
“Due to current political turmoils in the state in 1989, Zrenjanin Municipal Assembly made a decision on terminating “ water factory in construction “ and all activities concerning this project were stopped.
“In September of 2002, the first pilot research was started after 13 years in order to check out what could be acquired by application of new technologies in drinking water refining (membrane technologies are). “UNIVERSAL AQUA TECHNOLOGY “ through Belgrade firm “AQUA INTERMA “, put up its “pilot“ plant and on the basis on the plant’s work, during the period of about a month, and on testing filtration on membranes for reverse osmosis and nanofiltration, with primary chemically treated ground and river water ( at “ Jezera “ ), they submitted their work report. It was obvious out of this report that by using membrane technology we could get water of expected quality, but the quantity of waste water was very large, about 30%, so that such a solution would be, for sure, very expensive for us at the present moment ( although economic proposal had not been written) because, besides the technological solution, works should be also done on an increase of water source capacity by 50%.
“In January of 2003, a German-Hungarian firm “Waterlink “installed its “pilot plant “( Dunasend filter – san filter in constant motion). The plant, which at several places in Hungary gave good solutions in removing iron, arsenic and organic substances out from water, used FeCl3 – Ferro III chloride, KMnO4 – potassium permanganate and compressed air in the refining process. By the application of this technology, arsenic was successfully removed from water, but the concentration of iron and organic substances was still high, and water turbidity was increased compared to raw water. All of that could be read in the results from acquired chemical analysis. Final report on functioning of this system was not received, so that further research by the use of this technology was canceled.
“In May and June of 2003, an Italian firm “CULLIGAN “, through Belgrade firm “Landcompany“, installed its “pilot plant” with three fast sand filters which worked under pressure using FeCl3 and Al2(SO4)3 as flocculants and correction of water pH- value. In a month of work they did not succeed in getting appropriate quality of water. Given explanation was that they needed additional equipment which they would bring during summer break, but instead of that, they took away their dosage pumps. The research was not continued, three sand filters remained behind and the final report on the work of this plant was never submitted.
“By the end of January 2004, Hungarian-Canadian «ZENON» installed its container type pilot – plant (with chemical pretreatment and membrane vacuum filtration). Researches were conducted till the end of April 2004, but as they did not get expected results regarding removal of organic substances and ammonia, this «pilot» was replaced by another «pilot» which consisted of two units connected in a line. In the first part, water pH value was corrected by HCl to pH 5.5 – 6.5 together with addition of «BOPAC» (polyaluminiumchloride) as the flocculation substance. After the floccule sedimentation, water was filtered by ZeeWeed membranes (vacuum nanofiltration). Then, the air was blown into water obtained in such a way and water was sent into the next unit where the second flocculation took place with the help of 1% solution of KMnO4 and 10% solution of FeCl3. After the flocks were settled, for the second time water was filtered through ZeeWeed membranes, so that in the end we get water with very small contents of organic substances (KMnO4 expense 2 – 3 mg/l), water is without arsenic As and iron Fe, which are below the allowed limit, but chlorides are extremely increased – over 400 mg/l although in raw water there is only 30 mg/l of them. At the same time there is an increase in electrical conductivity so that at that moment it was about 1800 μS/cm, although in unprocessed water it was 1200 μS/cm. By this procedure the quantity of ammonia in water was still unchanged, as well as the quantity of sodium Na, although these elements were also found in unprocessed water in the quantity that was over maximum allowed quantity.
“A Slovakian firm «ENERGO CONTROLS» s.r.o, Žilina, brought its pilot – plant which was in function from July till the end of November 2004. Very specific technology, only recently introduced into the process of water refining in Germany and Slovakia (it is applied mostly in a few built systems for waste waters refining ). Process was marked as «electrical – flocculation» during which unprocessed water was led into the line formed by iron and aluminum electrodes, fed with direct current of 12 V, but of very high amperage (about 250 A). After water and electrodes were in contact from 5 to 20 minutes, water with formed floccules was sent to lamellar settling device where flocs in the form of mud went out and supernatant was driven over Kaligen’s filter with active carbon. After that, NaOCl (Javel water 2%)was added to water by dosage pump, and then it flew through quick sand filter, and as clean water flew out of the system. It was very hard to do optimization of this procedure, regarding inexperience in the work with such technology, because it happened that while adjusting work on one parameter, the other one immediately «sprang » out of balance.
“ATN – SLAP, patent by Branko Stančević, worked in the period from August till November 2004. The system was made of 3 vertical columns filled with patented filler (most probably the combination of zeolites, tuff, active carbon, quartz sand, etc.). Water flew through them, then it passed over three cascades and went out.
This plant did not give results that patent proposer expected. This system did only partial removal of Fe, Mn, NH3, As for about 30%. After a month of work, about 10 filtering units with same fillers were added, but results remained on the same level. Although water went through these filters, it still had almost all components above MAQ, as well as unprocessed water (organic substance was completely unchanged), so that they had almost no effect on the refining of our water.
“HIDROFIL KFT – NAĐ KANJIŽA, worked in the period from the month of May till November 2004. In the process of water refining this firm used nanofiltration or reversible osmosis, together with application of different columns with very specific fillers for prefiltration or additional filtration (columns were manufactured by «PENTAIR» – USA). Several different variants were tested, but in the end, with mutual consent, it was agreed that the best results were achieved when the following procedure was applied: deferrization – nanofiltration –ion-exchanging column – clear water. System worked all the time in a way that about 600 l/h of unprocessed water entered, and about 500 l/h of clean water exited it. Water was of very standardized and equalized quality. Waste water made 20% of total quantity of water that entered the system and there were attempts to refine it on reversible osmosis, so that total quantity of waste water came to less then 2 – 3 %. Entry waste water was under big chemical encumbrance and its direct application to RO had series of defects (necessary high pressure, inadequate membrane washing, unequalized water inflow), and the consequence was cracking of one of RO membranes, so that further research of waste water processing in that way, was given up.
“HP INSTITUTE FOR GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY – BELGRADE, started its operations in the month of May 2004. At the beginning of May this Institute organized a pilot research in the residential place of Elemir, where they brought a pilot – plant, constructed especially for this research. System consisted of flocculation procedure with FeCl3 and polyelectrolyte, where, when water was settled, released floc went through the filter filled with «specially activated anthracite». With lots of difficulties concerning establishing full automatization in the work of this system, it was not before September that first results were received, but a continous work of 24 hours a day was not established until today.
“LINDE – DREZDEN, GERMANY, was working from 20.07.2004 till spring 2005. That was a pilot – system of container type that consisted of classical chemical water pretreatment with different flocculants and plyelectrolytes. Mixing with different chemical substances could be achieved in 4 smaller pools and in that way flocs, that should settle in a settling device, could be produced. After water had been «calmed» in two pools, it was filtered through sand filter, and then a part of it, with the help of high pressure pump, went through RO membranes, so that produced clear water was mixed with water acquired after the process of filtration through sand filter until «mixed water» was attained with electrical conductivity of about 900 μS/cm, that should represent water of the quality used by the consumers. One additional filtering column was introduced subsequently, with the filler of granulated active carbon (GAC) – of «NORIT» brand, and there, water was driven over GAC, after it had been through sand filter, in order to compare results got from these columns with the results from RO. “
Since the planning document is from 2005-2006 we have no current information regarding approaches that have been tried since, but our on-the-ground information is that the problems that Zrenjanin and its surrounding villages faced when this document was crafted remain pretty much unresolved. That is why we believe that an approach that is the opposite of all the failed projects before, including starting with the lowest denominator – the person at the household faucet drawing a glass of drinking water or a pot of water for tea – will prove to be the way forward to a sustainable solution on a larger scale, a solution for the whole community and for communities like Zrenjanin across Serbia.
APPENDIX TWO: Water Filtration Performance Metrics
Performance Data on Stage 1 Gravity-Fed Ceramic Filters In XXXX Systems
Stage 1 Ceramic Filter Performance
Stage 1 – Bacteria Eliminated
E. Coli – all strains
> 99.99
Type Of Treatment
Ceramic Filtration
Fecal Bacteria – all strains
> 99.99%
Filter Effective Life – Medium Serv.
12 Months
Salmonella
> 99.999 %
Working Temperatures
5-42oC
Cholera
> 99.99 %
Klebsiella
> 99.999 %
NSE Approved
Yes
Shigella
> 99.999 %
WRAS Approved
Yes
Cryptosporidium Cysts
100%
Giardia Cysts
100%
Particulate Reduction To NSF Standard 42
Yes
Lead Reduction To NSF Standard 53
Yes
Chlorine Reduction To NSF Standard 42
Yes
Turbidity Tolerance
<1.0 NTU
Absolute Filtration Level
0.9 Microns
Effective Ceramic Filter Rating >99.99%
0.5 – 0.8 Microns
Effective Ceramic Filter Rating >99.7%
0.3 – 0.5 Microns
Effective Ceramic Filter Rating >98.0%
0.2 – 0.3 Microns
Performance Data On Stage 2 stand-alone DC Solar-Cell (With AC option) Powered O3 Oxidation Treatment Used In AquaPureTechnologies Systems
Stage 2 – Oxidation Of Organics
Organics Oxidized & Eliminated
Rate Of Oxidation
Type of Treatment
O3 Oxidation
Algae – Blue & Green
Slow
Bacteria – All
Fast
Treatment Cycle
30 Minutes
E. coli – all
Fast
Diffuser Replacement
12 Months
Micrococcus – All
Rapid
O3 Oxidizer Replacement
12 Months
salmonella – All
Fast
Shingella – Dysentry
Rapid
Working Temperature
5-45 oC
Fungi, Molds, Yeasts
Slow
Operational pH Range
< 9.0
Nematodes
Slow
Protozoa
Slow
GMP_Approved By FDA For Bottled Water Sanitation
Yes
Giardia
Slow
IBWA Approval
Yes
Microsporidium
Rapid
Antimicrobial Food Additive Approval By USDA National Organic Program
Banned Pesticides In Tobacco Products – Background
So, you would think that if nasty old Endosulfan, Heptachlor and 4,4-DDE, and a whole lot more organochlorine and organophosphate pesticides weren’t being used on tobacco anymore then the tobacco industry scientific organization CORESTA wouldn’t be publishing “good practice” guidelines updated June 2018 that lists acceptable limits on them – right?
That link is a pretty detailed research piece that looks at the health impact of pesticides on tobacco farmers in Brazil, and in the process it talks in detail about the pesticides they are exposed to. Of course, these are the same pesticides whose residues wind up on Brazilian tobacco. Check it out.
The relevance is that the banned pesticides in those 2003 EU cigarettes got into them exactly the same way that banned pesticides are getting into every US cigarette manufactured with Brazilian tobacco stems and trash in 2018.
