[All] Canadian Water Network

Mon Mar 9 09:16:13 EDT 2015

Hi Susan,
These endocrine disruptors have been affecting not only fish, but
especially amphibians. However, all pharmaceuticals are a concern in our
water supply as they are so difficult to remove.

I know that Dr. Sherry Schiff at U of W has been analysing samples form the
Grand R. for several years and I presume others at the Groundwater
Institute are also involved. If you would like any contacts there I would
be happy to help.

Anne
------------------------

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Louisette Lanteigne <
butterflybluelu at rogers.com> wrote:

> Hi folks
>
> I met Mark Servos and Rob DeLoe from the Canadian Water Network and they
> are wonderful folks doing top notch research. Unfortunately I observe their
> statements are highly monitored. I have literally seen special ops guys in
> black suits with earpieces who are miked up attending their events. The
> same thing was seen at the NEB hearings I attended regarding Line 9. The
> amount of monitoring around the public statements is outrageous. The first
> time I witnessed it was when Mark Servos went to City of Waterloo council
> to discuss the endocrine disruption in the Grand. This was a presentation
> on the issue and not a formal council meeting but it was held at City
> Hall.  He was informative but had to carefully craft his words as to not
> create alarm with the things he was saying, relying heavily upon technical
> terms and use of legal parse. There was one well suited man who oddly asked
> them a question during his presentation regarding the possibility of
> pumping in water from the Arctic to supply the Tar Sands with water. It was
> completely out of context considering the theme of the presentation but Mr.
> Servos replied it could in theory be done by why do it? It's not worth the
> risk in his view.
>
> There's a great deal of issues that the Canadian Water Quality Network are
> aware of. Contamination in the Athabasca, the impacts of endocrine
> disruptors, the issues surrounding long term consequences of pesticides
> such as Atrazine etc. Many of these issues are well known within the
> scientific community however there are political consequences when the
> agencies so strongly bound to the funding of public services such as
> wildlife monitoring (sponsored by Syngenta) or the Conservation Authorities
> (often sponsored by gravel pits, engineering firms, pesticide
> manufacturers, oil companies etc.) Research funding can come from all sorts
> of interesting places so one cannot be too publicly critical in spite of
> the data but rest assured, they know plenty more about what's happening but
> the gag factors they deal with are pretty outrageous. Sometimes the
> information is only accessible if your willing to pay a hundred or more to
> view certain publications etc. leaving the public in the position to glean
> data off of crumbs that trickle down through public media.
>
> In terms of Endocrine disrupting chemicals they're finally starting to get
> some hard core economic/health analysis on the situation. This report was
> published March 5/ 2015 states it is linked to lowered IQ, male
> infertility, diabetes and obesity and costs the UK 209 billion US currency,
> annually.
>
>
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/estimated-costs-of-endocrine-disrupting-chemical-exposure-exceed-150-billion-annually-in-eu
>
> View attachment for graphs.
>
> Lulu
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Bob Burtt <bobburtt at gmail.com>
> *To:* Susan Koswan <susankoswan at execulink.com>
> *Cc:* GREN <all at gren.ca>
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 8, 2015 6:50 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [All] Canadian Water Network
>
> Hi Susan...There have been a number of stories in The Record over a
> number of years about prescription drugs, particularly birth control
> pills getting through sewage treatment plants.
> As a consequence male fish have been found with female traits.
> The region has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on sewage
> treatment over the last decade or so, and that no doubt, has had a
> positive effect on water quality in the Grand, but it always seemed to
> me that whatever improvements were made to the STPs, it was only
> enough to play catch up and never enough to get ahead the impact of a
> growing population.
>
> I remember writing stories 10 or 12 years ago about a part of the
> river at Blair, downstream from the Kitchener STP that was considered
> toxic to fish. Improvements to Kitchener's plant were expected to
> improve that situation, but I don't know what the situation would be
> now.
> Sandra Cooke at the GRCA headed up studies about that,but the
> authority was always unwilling to release too much information back
> then.
>
> Not sure, but I think you might access Mark's work if you did a search.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Susan Koswan <susankoswan at execulink.com>
> wrote:
> > Thank you Tony,
> >
> >
> >
> > I keep going back to thinking that our work needs to focus on closing the
> > gap between government and academia/research and widening the gap between
> > academia/research and corporate/private/foundation money. My fundraising
> > work in not-for-profits was far too often swerved to meet the
> > parameters/needs/goals of the funding body rather than to serve the needs
> > and meet the mandate of the not-for-profit agency. It’s been many years,
> but
> > I expect it has got worse rather than better. Academia should serve “the
> > people”.
> >
> >
> >
> > I just keep struggling to find what the keystone or catalyst is that is
> > central to creating the cascade of positive changes we’d like to see
> happen.
> > It starts with removing Harper, but the core is still rotten...
> >
> >
> >
> > Susan K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Tony Maas [mailto:tony at maas-strategies.com]
> > Sent: March-08-15 2:02 PM
> > To: Susan Koswan
> > Cc: GREN
> > Subject: Re: [All] Canadian Water Network
> >
> >
> >
> > I have had plenty of dealings - am currently working on a contract for
> them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Suggest you reach out to Dr. Mark Servos if you are interested in
> > understanding what CWN researchers are doing on the Grand. He is a busy
> guy
> > but I imagine he’d be willing to speak to GREN. Note that CWN is a
> national
> > network, so they have projects in place across the country.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> > On Mar 8, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Susan Koswan <susankoswan at execulink.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi GRENers,
> >
> > Has anyone ever had any dealings with the Canadian Water Network?
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.cwn-rce.ca/index.php/
> >
> >
> >
> > Met up with some acquaintances last night (mostly health-related
> > professions) and they were talking about the terrible things that are in
> the
> > Grand River – artificial sweeteners and oestrogen in particular. With
> such a
> > vast number of water professionals in our neck of the woods, you’d think
> the
> > Grand and our acquifers would be pristine and state of the art. Instead,
> we
> > still have toxic sediments and the residuals of Crompton etc fouling the
> > system, a water-treatment system that can do nothing for chemical
> pollutants
> > and an aged wastewater treatment system that cannot handle chemical
> > pollutants and seriously needs to be upgraded (although I understand
> that is
> > in the works).
> >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps the conversation is happening and work is being done between the
> > researchers and our decision makers and I just don’t know about it, but
> if
> > it isn’t, should it be a high priority for GREN to be a conduit for that
> > conversation?
> >
> >
> >
> > I don’t feel like buying an RO system...
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Susan K
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> All mailing list
> All at gren.ca
> http://gren.ca/mailman/listinfo/all_gren.ca
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20150309/26a12b51/attachment.html>