Scientists are divided regarding the source and the
mechanism responsible for releasing arsenic into the
groundwater of Bangladesh. One group supports the
oxyhydroxide reduction mechanism, whereas the other
group claims that the oxidation mechanism is
responsible for releasing arsenic into the groundwater
of the Bengal Basin.

The proponents of the Oxidation theory (Dr. Bridge,
Mr. Husain, Dr. Fanning, Dr. Chakraborti), presented
some data, explanations, logical arguments, and
evidence that support the oxidation theory and reject
the oxyhydroxide reduction theory for the mobilization
of arsenic into the groundwater of Bangladesh, in
their articles, scientific discussions, and
correspondences.

On the other hand the proponents of Oxhydroxide
Reduction theory, (BGS/DPHE/MML investigators, Ross
Nickson & Dr. McArthur et. al. and Dr. Bhattacharya
and Dr. Gunnar Jacks et. al.), collected data in
support of the Oxyhydoxide Reduction theory. According
to the proponents of the Oxidation theory, the
above-mentioned sceintists, rejected the Oxidation
theory without any investigations/study and proposed
the Oxyhydroxide Reduction theory based on speculation
and unreliable data. The proponents of the Oxidation
theory have also challenged the proponents of the
Oxyhydroxide reduction theory to present data and
evidence in support of their claims.

On June 15, 2001 Prof. Feroz Ahmed of the Bangladesh
University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) stated
in his article (The New Nation, Bangladesh) entitled
"Causes of Arsenic Contamination": "The oxidation
hypothesis in Bangladesh is not getting support in the
absence of widespread arsenopyrite in Bangladesh. The
intensity of arsenic problem has not been found to
have any relationship with groundwater fluctuations.

"Similarly, the hot spots in Bangladesh are not located
in areas of high withdrawal of groundwater for
irrigation. At the same time, very low concentration
of sulfate in groundwater is also contrary to pyrite
oxidation hypothesis. The traces of arsenopyrite or
arsenic sulfides found in sediments might have
possibly been formed under enhanced reduced
conditions.

"Hence, the hypothesis of arsenic release
by oxidation of top layer of soil is not being
considered as main mechanism of groundwater
contamination in Bangladesh. The study of sediment
samples collected from different arsenic-prone areas,
lying mostly in lower Gangetic plain has shown
arsenic-rich oxide coatings of varying thickness on
sand grains. Evidences suggest that reductive
description and dissolution of arsenic absorbed onto
iron oxyhydroxides in recent sediments can be the most
probable mechanism of arsenic mobilization in
groundwater."

On September 16, 2001, Mr. Abdul Quddus in his article
entitled "Arsenic Contamination of Drinking Water and
Why it is bad" which was published in The Bangladesh
Observer, stated: "The most widely accepted scientific
view is that arsenic is released into the groundwater
because of a natural *reducing* chemical environment
that exists in Bangladesh*s shallow aquifers i.e., the
oxyhydroxide reduction theory. This is where the
minerals and rocks to which the arsenic elements are
naturally bound are slowly "reduced" and as this
happens any arsenic present is released. As this
reducing environment exists only below the water below
the water table any arsenic released contaminates the
groundwater.

"The present arsenic crisis, therefore, is
the result of a naturally occurring geological
phenomenon, and not due to human intervention."

Prof Feroz Ahmed is a civil engineer. He does not have
strong geological knowledge and enough experience to
collect and analyze geological, hydrogeological and
geochemical data related to geological problems. As a
result, his statement regarding the cause of
groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh is not
credible.

We do not know about the expertise and
professional experience of Mr. Quddus to justify the
source and the mechanism of groundwater arsenic
poisoning in Bangladesh. From our discussions with the
scientists who proposed the Oxyhydroxide reduction
theory and rejected the Oxidation theory, we can tell
that Mr. Quddus* above statement is not based on sound
scientific data. It appears that both Prof. Feroz and
Mr. Quddus compiled their statements from the
BGS/DPHE/MML investigative report.

Geologist Dr. Bridge and Mr. Husain were the first
scientists to strongly oppose the Oxyhydroxide
Reduction theory because the proponents of
Oxyhydroxide Reduction theory could not present
sufficient reliable data in support of their theory.

We are requesting prof. Feroz and Mr. Quddus to
present data that support the Oxyhydroxide reduction
theory for the mobilization of arsenic into
groundwater. According to the articles and scientific
discussions of Dr. Bridge, Mr. Husain, Dr. Fanning,
and Dr. Chakraborti it is evident that Oxyhydroxide
reduction theory is an incorrect theory proposed by
BGS/DPHE/MML and other investigators.

Recently geologists Dr. Bridge and Mr. Husain raised
two important questions to verify the validity of both
the oxyhydroxide reduction and Oxidation theories and
they also requested scientists who proposed the
oxyhydroxide reduction theory and opposed the
oxidation theory to answer these questions.

As Prof. Feroz and Mr. Quddus have accepted the Oxyhydroxide
Reduction theory, we are requesting both Prof. Feroz
and Mr. Quddus to answer these questions:

1. If the oxyhydroxide reduction hypothesis is correct
and if arsenic was present in an adsorbed form on iron
hydroxide for thousands of years and existed in a
solution for thousands of years in the aquifer
groundwater of the Bengal Basin without being flushed
out to sea, how did the people of Bangladesh and West
Bengal of India avoid the arsenic poisoning when
thousands of people drank water from dugwells for
thousands of years and from thousands of tubewells for
60 to 70 years, prior to the 1970s?

2. Also please explain how millions of people in Bangladesh who had
been drinking water from millions of tubewells during
the interval between the 1960's and prior to 1975,
before the construction of dams/barrages and diversion
of surface water by India from the Ganges, Tista, and
28 other common rivers of Bangladesh and India, lack
signs of arsenic poisoning?

Dr. Bridge and Mr. Husain are professional geologists.
They have extensive experience in dealing with soil
and groundwater contamination. They strongly believe
that "The answers to these questions will tell us
whether the groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bengal
delta has been present for thousands of years or if it
is a recent environmental problem. The answers of
these questions will also tell us whether the
groundwater arsenic poisoning is occurring under a
natural process or is a man-made disaster. Finally,
the answers will tell us about the source and cause of
the arsenic poisoning and the solution to the
problem".

If Prof. Feroz Ahmed, and Mr. Quddus have any
difficulty to understand these questions, we request
both Prof. Feroz and Mr.Quddus to review the following
articles written by Bridge & Husain. These articles
will help them to understand the above questions
raised by Bridge and Husain

1. Roots of Arsenic Poisoning, The Financial Express,
News From Bangladesh, Shetubondhon, Arsenic Source
Group, September 2001.

2. Arsenic Crisis: A challenge for scientists to find
the origin of arsenic that caused the poisoning
disaster in Bangladesh, The Bangladesh Observer, News
From Bangladesh, Shetubondhon, Arsenic Source group,
November 2000.

3. Oxyhydroxide Reduction and Agrochemical Hypotheses:
Myth or Reality?

4. The Financial Express, News From Bangladesh,
Shetubondhon, June 2000.

5. Increased Drawdown and Recharge in groundwater
Aquifer and their relationship with groundwater
Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh, News From Bangladesh,
Shetubondhon, 2000.

Prof. Feroz Ahmed, you are an engineer and we believe
you are familiar with river water discharge data of
the major rivers of Bangladesh and we also believe
that you also teach your students about hydrology of
Bangladesh. Did you notice that BGS/DPHE/MML
investigators in their investigative report did not
include the post-Farakka discharge data of major
rivers of Bangladesh but they presented the
pre-Farakka discharge data?

In his article "Roots of Arsenic Poisoning", Meer Husain stated "The
BGS/DPHE/MML investigators in their investigative
report presented pre-Farakka long term river water
discharge data of the Ganges (Padma), Bhramahputra,
and Meghna rivers, but they did not present the
post-Farakka river water discharge data. They do not
have any idea about what has happened in the
hydrological, hydro-geological and hydro-chemical
cycles of Bengal Basin in the last two decades.
Twenty-six years of water diversion from 30+
dams/barrages has had a great role for the
mobilization of arsenic into the groundwater of
Bangladesh.

Dear scientists, journalists, and environmentally
concerned people who really want to save the people of
Bangladesh from the arsenic poisoning, please take a
look at the following pre and post Farakka river water
discharge data of the Ganges river. The pre- Farakka
discharge data are based on the BGS/DPHE/MML Phase-1
investigative report (Groundwater studies for arsenic
contamination in Bangladesh, 1999) and the
post-Farakka discharge data are based on
G. Hebblethwaite's research entitled "The Impacts and
Implications of the Farakka Barrage upon Bangladesh"
B.S. thesis, University of New Castle upon Tyne, U.K.
(1997).

Pre-Farakka Discharge (before 1975) in Cu.M/Sec:

Rivers Avg Annual Discharge Avg Dry Season Discharge

Ganges (Padma) 11,450 2,730
Brahmaputra 19,500 7,270
Meghna 3,586 930


Post Farakka Discharge (after 1975) in Cu.M/Sec:

Rivers 10 y Avg Annual Disch 10 y Avg Annual Disch 6 y Avr Disch
(1975-1984) (1985-1994) (1991-1996)

Ganges (Padma) 1090 670 440
Brahmaputra _ _ _
Meghna _ _ _

Please take a close look at how the discharge in the
Ganges (Padma) River in Bangladesh has been decreased
due to India's unilateral diversion for the last 26
years. Prior to 1975, in the dry season, the areas in
Bangladesh that were under water for thousands of
years are now dry land. The pre and post Farakka
discharge data clearly indicate why Bangladesh is
having severe environmental problems including
groundwater arsenic poisoning since 1975.

The BGS/DPHE/MML investigators probably did not know
the recent human activities (i.e. construction of
dams, barrages, reservoirs, power plants, diversion of
rivers water and over-pumping of groundwater etc.)
that have caused severe damage in the ecosystem of the
Bengal Basin; consequently they have failed to
understand and recognize the real cause of the
groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh".

Prof. Feroz and Mr. Quddus, can you tell us why the
BGS/DPHE/MML investigators did not include
post-Farakka discharge data? The BGS/MML investigators
(Foreigner) might have not known the impact of water
diversion by Farakka and other rivers. But we wonder
why you and other DPHE (Bangladeshi) investigators did
not raise questions about the post-Farakka discharge
data of the major rivers of Bangladesh.

Prof. Feroz and Mr.Quddus, if you really know the
source and the cause of arsenic poisoning in
Bangladesh we encourage you to present your data and
explanation(s) that support the Oxyhydroxide Reduction
Theory. However, if you do not have a sufficient
educational background or experience to justify the
source and the cause of the arsenic poisoning in
Bangladesh, please do not make any further misleading
statements. The unprofessional statement will cause
more harm than good for the people of Bangladesh.

The source and the cause of groundwater arsenic poisoning
in Bangladesh is a geological problem and we are
requesting experienced geologists, geochemists, and
hydro-geologists to continue their discussion on the
arsenic problem of Bangladesh and West Bengal of
India. We would also like to know from them, what
action needs to be done to discover the actual cause
of the arsenic poisoning in the Bengal Basin.

Thanking you.

S.M. Rahman