We depend on the government indirectly through the agency of Guyana Water Inc to ensure that our water is potable, and if it is not, to advise us that it is not of drinking quality. This has been done in the case of Georgetown in the last few decades, not because the water is not treated at source in the Shelter Belt, but because the transmission lines which pipe it to our homes are damaged in some wards.
In addition, we trust the government to treat our water with chemicals which are internationally recognized as being safe for human consumption, and not to go experimenting with novel purification agents using us as guinea pigs. For as long as anyone can remember, the water authorities in this country have been utilizing chlorine for treating our water supply, in line with most of their counterparts in other parts of the world. But last week this newspaper drew attention to the fact that there were three locations where not chlorine, but something new was being tried out.
We reported that documentation from GWI meetings seen by this newspaper, indicated that the chemical polyhexanide, sold as Antinfek, was being used in wells at Bartica, Diamond and Hillfoot on the Linden-Soesdyke Highway. In addition, we reported, $3.6 million had already been paid to the local subsidiary of the Thailand-based company, Dove Biotech, which was selected in a single source process to supply the chemical. The evidence for the use of Antinfek comes from meetings held during the period from early April to July this year.
On August 11, however, exactly one month after the Director of Operations had told a meeting that the Diamond well was being “dosed with Antinfek 10H chemical to treat the water,” he indicated a reversal of that arrangement. He had ceased to use the chemical there, he said, after being informed by Water Quality Manager Donna Canterbury that GWI’s laboratory could not test Antinfek when it was being used.
That Ms Canterbury’s information should have been taken into account only after the chemical had already been put into use seems nothing short of irresponsible. Furthermore, it was not the first time that she had offered an opinion on a subject which falls well within her field of expertise. According to a document seen by this newspaper, back in 2012 Ms Canterbury had conducted tests on the chemical, and while these had proved positive, she had received no reply from Dove Biotech when she had requested data on the side effects. In addition GWI did not have the equipment to test for polyhexanide and confirm the correct dosage, and neither could PAHO give any assurance that it could be used in water.
This was four years ago, so are we to assume that GWI has no sense of historicity, and just starts from scratch every time a decision has to be made, ignoring whatever technical and other knowledge the authority has built up over the years which could usefully inform that decision? Or is it evidence of a certain kind of arrogance, that no matter what anyone else knows, the current decision-makers know better, evidence notwithstanding?
Further damaging evidence about the safety of Antinfek and the chronology of events emerged when the Director of the Government Analyst-Food and Drug Department Marlan Cole released emails exchanged between himself, GWI Chemical Engineer Deon Anderson and representatives of PAHO and the WHO. According to Mr Anderson, the mail was copied to GWI’s Managing Director, Dr Richard Van West-Charles to keep him informed.
Mr Cole told Stabroek News that he was very disturbed when he read in the Guyana Times that GWI was abandoning it use of chlorine in the water in favour of Antinfek. This chemical he said, had not been tested by his department, had been banned in Haiti and had had negative reviews.
“We all use this water,” he was quoted as saying, and we don’t know what it is being treated with?”
The email correspondence starts on June 20th, when the GWI Chemical Engineer wrote to the PAHO/WHO consultant in Guyana, Dr Mariano Bonet Gorbea seeking advice about the use of Antinfek 10H as the corporation was considering using it here to treat the water. He mentioned the fact that there were difficulties in locating equipment which could monitor residuals.
Replying the same day, Dr Bonet said among other things, that in addition to undertaking some research, he would forward the email to his colleague in Barbados, Dr Adrianus Vlugman for advice. Dr Vlugman’s position was that long-term exposure had not been studied and so it would be risky to substitute it for the “tried and tested” chlorine, and in this he was supported by another PAHO official, who joined the conversation on 23rd June. After some further discussion, Mr Cole summed it up on June 30th with the question: “this product should therefore not be suitable to treat household drinking water in Guyana also?” As far as he was concerned, he indicated, this was the end of the issue, but following the GT article he wanted to know if GWI went ahead and implemented the use of the drug to treat water for Guyana’s citizenry without the necessary approval from his department.
The short answer to that question is that it seems as if they did.
It must be reiterated, that this email correspondence took place before the July 11 meeting at GWI where it was stated that the Diamond well was being dosed with Antinfek. So this is a case of current advice from overseas consultants seemingly being ignored.
The disclosure of the emails brought the Minister of Public Health, Dr George Norton, into the fray because the food and drug department falls under his ministry. “I will definitely ask my officers to have GWI explain [the use of Antinfek to treat water]”, he said. If citizens were expecting any revelations from this direction, however, they were to be disappointed; he subsequently told Stabroek News that his ministry had contacted the office of Dr Van West-Charles and had been assured there “was no reason to worry.”
“I am satisfied [with the explanation],” Dr Norton said, while adding that whatever is being done had not gone beyond testing. “I have no reason to doubt the integrity of those at the water corporation,” the Minister responded, when told that this newspaper had seen documentation that the chemical was in use in at least three wells in Guyana.
Fortunately for the public, the Public Utilities Commission is less timid and less naïve than the Minister of Public Health, and has instructed GWI to desist from utilizing polyhexanide for water purification until its safety can be determined by an external agency. One hopes they will require an account ‒ with documentation ‒ of what went on at GWI, particularly between April and August, since one does not imagine that the corporation is so reckless as still to be using Antinfek in any well in this country at this point in time, given what has emerged.
In fact, as mentioned in relation to Dr Norton’s comments, that is the official position of GWI as of early last week: that the chemical was only being researched by the corporation and was not being used in any wells. The nature of the testing, given equipment constraints, was not enlarged on. Taking aim at the messenger, a press release from the water authority said that Mr Cole’s comments “were inaccurate and irresponsible as a senior government functionary… [and had] added to an unnecessary cause for public alarm.” Dr Norton had his own charge to make, if only by implication, when he said that no official had been given permission to make a public statement on the issue. Suffice it to say that Mr Cole has now lapsed into silence.
Ms Canterbury has had her own woes to face at GWI, although whether these are directly connected to the Antinfek matter is not clear. Whatever the case, it is those who are trying to protect the public, it appears, who have been feeling the pressure, not those whose actions potentially could put the public at risk.
What did emerge from GWI’s press release was that Dr Van West-Charles was the inspiration behind ‘researching’ Antinfek, since he had noted with concern that disinfection and filtration were inadequate. The minutes of meetings seen by this newspaper are more explicit, and it appears that he was the “main driver of using Antinfek 10H for the Bartica and Diamond wells.” Needless to say, the Head of the corporation has so far declined to comment. Further-more, as mentioned earlier, according to a report seen by this newspaper, the purchase of Antinfek was sole sourced on the basis of two documents one of which was signed by the Director of Procurement and the Managing Director, and the other of which was approved by the latter.
So, we have a corporation which ignored historical evidence about the safety of Antinfek in drinking water, bypassed current evidence and expert advice, and in the absence of equipment to do tests relating to dosage and residuals still went ahead ‒ according to the documentary evidence ‒ and obtained it through sole sourcing, using it in certain wells. Citizens need a full account of what happened; public safety is not something which can be played around with at the whim of senior officials. As we wait for that investigation by the PUC or whoever, in the interim it needs to be emphasized to the GWI Managing Director that he is not the Water Czar; he is bound by the law and regulations, and is obliged to listen to the advice of his professional officers.
