AUSTRALIAN groundwater is in places seriously contaminated by arsenic,
according to recent research from the University of New South Wales. While such
water contamination is a significant problem on the Indian sub-continent, few
people suspected that it could affect the clean, coastal sand aquifers in
Australia. Exposure to arsenic can cause a range of health problems, from skin
complaints to cancer. High levels, of course, are acutely toxic.
Studies by PhD student James Smith of an aquifer just north of the town of
Kempsey in northern NSW have found arsenic levels above 300 micrograms a litre.
This is more than 40 times the Australian health standards limit. The area now
treats its drinking water to avoid poisoning local people. But Smith is still
worried about the health risks. 鈥淎rsenic can be absorbed through the skin in
washing and is readily taken up by agricultural crops which are irrigated with
the contaminated groundwater,鈥� he says.
Little monitoring has been carried out in Australia for trace elements such
as arsenic, Smith says. So we do not know if the levels now being found are a
recent problem or a long-standing effect that has gone unnoticed. Not enough
research has been undertaken to determine whether patterns of illness are
attributable to the water.
Advertisement
The cause of the contamination is an interesting scientific problem. The
presence of arsenic in Australian aquifers seems strongly correlated with acid
sulphate soils. One possibility is that the mineral pyrite in these soils is
oxidised when it comes into contact with the atmosphere, triggering a series of
reactions which release arsenic. If that is the case, then the very act of
drilling into the groundwater carries with it an intrinsic risk of poisoning the
supply. The variation in arsenic levels between different sites, however,
suggests that the mechanism may be more complicated.
The problem is important because groundwater is used so extensively in
coastal areas where there are acid sulphate soils.
MARIJUANA should be legalised and taxed if we want to reduce its use, a
recent study at Adelaide University has found. Jenny Williams announced her
results at a conference of the Southern Economics Association in Washington D.C.
last month. Her main conclusion was that the cost of the drug has much more
impact on users than the risk of prosecution.
Williams found that increasing the price of high quality cannabis from
A$32 to A$38 a gram would reduce the number of people who use the
drug every week by 23 per cent. By contrast, increasing the prison sentence for
possession of marijuana from one year to two years would reduce the number of
weekly users by only 2 per cent.
鈥淭here is strong evidence to show that marijuana demand is price responsive,鈥�
Williams said. She argued that policy makers should consider legalising the drug
and taxing sales. Although removing the criminal sanctions against cultivation
or possession of marijuana might make the drug more acceptable, Williams鈥� study
showed that the consequent ability to increase the price by taxation would have
a greater impact on use than the present approach of legal penalties. And the
capacity to regulate sale of the drug could also result in fewer school children
using it, Williams said.
But policy on illegal drugs tends to be driven by prejudice rather than
evidence. It could be argued that criminal penalties for drug use only create an
assured income stream for organised crime, just as the prohibition laws in the
US did in the 1920s. While governments may not be persuaded to legalise
marijuana by the evidence, they might be attracted by the opportunity to
increase revenue.
At this time of cheer and indulgence, it is disturbing to hear that some of
the students attending Australian universities cannot afford to eat properly.
The problem was so acute this year at the Bendigo campus of La Trobe University
in central Victoria that its chaplaincy centre set up a free food pantry.
Community groups and individuals donated bread, produce and packaged foods, such
as rice and pasta. The food was left on a table to allow struggling students to
help themselves without the indignity of begging. Demand was so high that the
centre appealed to staff for extra donations of food.
Although I am pleased to see that people are prepared to help those in need,
there is something critically wrong with our funding policies if students have
to rely on handouts for a square meal. Perhaps the Scrooges in government could
take the opportunity of the festive season to review student living
conditions.