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

I find the arguments on the issue of Arseni crisis in
Wes Bengal intriguing.

I am proud to be part of such a group.

I would like to ask members to tone down personal
attacks during discussion for these discussions to be
meaningful. I find comments by Meer Husain to Mr
Nazrul Islam personal. rejection of ones opinion does
not at all warrant personal attack on fellow
scientist. we are all concerned with the arsenic
crisis worldwide and our contribution is what is
needed by societies that suffer such catastrophe.

Thank you

Apyron also sells a test kit, which is very user friendly.

Sherry Odom
Director of Communications
Apyron Technologies
4030-F Pleasantdale Road
Atlanta, GA, 30340
770.263.1012

Anitha Sharma,

Department of Water Supply and Sewerage, Nepal has been using 40 test kits
developed by AIIPHH (All India Institute of Public Health and Hygiene) to
test 4000 shallow tubewells in 20 terai districts adjoining to India. These
test kits can qualitatively detect whether the samples contain more than 50
ppb(0.05 mg/L). These are relatively cheaper than other kits, but need some
modifications to make it more user friendly in terms of handling conc. HCl
and rusting of components of the kits (US$ 50 per kit for first 100 Samples
and then you have to buy HgBr2 papers, conc.HCl, SnCl2, Zn granules, KI and
other logistics as per your needs. Confirmation with AAS indicates that it
works fairly well; correlation value r2 will be sent to you later.

There are other kits viz. Arsenator, Hach, E-merk, Nipsom, As top etc., may
be Dr. D.Chakrabarty's article will be useful to you.

Amar Neku


----- Original Message -----
From: <anita_roopdaska@...>
To: <arsenic-source@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 5:12 AM
Subject: [arsenic-source] What is the best arsenic field test kit?


> Dear all,
>
> We are interested in finding the best field test kit for the measurement
of arsenic (should measure from 0.050 mg/L and above). Can you give us some
suggestions?
>
> Thanking you
>
> Anitha Sharma
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe email
> arsenic-source-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> For info on the arsenic crisis in West Bengal (India) & Bangladesh, visit
http://bicn.com/acic/
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear all,

We are interested in finding the best field test kit for the measurement of
arsenic (should measure from 0.050 mg/L and above). Can you give us some
suggestions?

Thanking you

Anitha Sharma

If Mr. Nazrul Islam is a geologist and if he does not have working experience in
dealing with groundwater contamination projects, he may conduct a comparative
study about the oxidation/reduction mechanisms in the context of the arsenic
problem of Bangladesh using the BGS/DPHE reports, articles written by Dr. Bridge
& myself, Dr. Chakraborti, Dr. Fanning, Dr. McArthur, Dr. Bhattacharya, and
others.  This type of study will help him understand the real mechanism
responsible for releasing arsenic into the groundwater.  While doing this study
Mr. Islam needs to be neutral and unbiased for judging the conditions of the
oxidation and reduction processes.

If Mr. Nazrul Islam is not a geologist, then he should take some courses on
geology, hydrogeology, and geochemistry, and gain some working experience before
making comments and explanations on geological problems, especially on the
source and the mechanism for releasing arsenic into the groundwater of the
Bengal Basin, because the groundwater arsenic problem of the Bengal Basin is a
geological problem.

Even if Mr. Islam is not a geologist, by reviewing our articles he will gain a
good understanding regarding the oxidation/reduction mechanisms and the
importance of detailed investigations for establishing the source and cause of
the groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.

The source and the cause of arsenic poisoning must be studied/investigated with
adequate geological, hydrological, hydro-geological and geo-chemical parameters.
The data must be collected and interpreted by knowledgeable and experienced
geologist, hydrologist, hydrogeologist and geochemist.

Sincerely,

Meer Husain

Columbia University's Superfund Basic Research Program is pleased to
announce an international conference entitled "Arsenic in Drinking
Water" on Monday, November 26th through Tuesday, November 27th, 2001.
The conference will be held at Lerner Hall on Columbia University's
Morningside Campus, 2920 Broadway, NYC.  For more details regarding the
conference and to register online please see the Columbia SBRP website
"superfund.ciesin.columbia.edu" and click on "Register for Nov.
Conference".

The conference is sponsored by the Superfund Basic Research Program (SBRP)
which is administered by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) in coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA). Additional support is provided by the Columbia Earth
Institute. Thanks to these generous contributions the conference is free
and open to the public. However, seating is limited and pre-registration
is strongly recommended for all participants.

If you have any questions regarding the conference you may contact Ann
Hutzelman (amr4@... or 212-305-3466) at the Division of
Environmental Health Sciences of the Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University. Inquiries related to the website and online
registration should be addressed to Meredith Golden
(mgolden@...).

We hope that you will be able to join us. Please feel free to forward
this announcement to any of your colleagues who might be interested in
attending. (Please excuse any cross-listings for this conference.)

Meredith Golden
CIESIN at Columbia University
Geosciences
PO Box 1000, 61 Route 9W
Palisades NY 10964
phone: 845-365-8968
fax: 845-365-8922

Announcement: International Workshop - Natural Arsenic In Sedimentary Aquifers -
A Global Concern

organizers: Prof. J. Bundschuh (INASLA, Argentina. ICE Costa Rica, TUD Germany)
Dr. Prosun Bhattacharya (KTH, Sweden)

We would like to invite you to take part in the international
workshop "Natural Arsenic in Sedimentary Aquifers - A Global
Concern", which will be organised during the IAH-Congress being held
in Mar del Plata, Argentina between 21 and 26th  October 2002. The
theme of the Congress is "Groundwater and Human Development".
This interdisciplinary Workshop focuses on the arsenic rich
groundwaters from many regions of the world where over 100 million
people are affected due to arsenic poisoning (1.2 million in
Argentina). The event is addressed to water resources scientists,
managers, policy-makers, land planners, agronomists, health personal,
etc. who are  in one way or the other are concerned about arsenic in
groundwater, its occurrence, origin, health impacts, economic
consequences, remediation tools, etc.

The Workshop will enable these groups to discuss the state of the art
of the problem, understand its intricacies, develop environmentally
suitable remediation methods, help in sustainable development of the
affected regions of the world and promote applications of integrated
land and resources management practices.

For more information on this workshop please visit  the homepage of
the event at:

http://amov.ce.kth.se/PEOPLE/Prosun/workshop_Argentina.htm

Prof. Dr. Jochen Bundschuh
International Groundwater Research Group
KTH Sweden – Latin- American Representative

I can not believe these type of comments are still being made in the
project / problem.

The comments made by Mr Husain are completey correct and I wholly agree.  I
have made this point previously, but will make it again as the situation
does not seem to have changed.

I have been a bystander in the discussions as I have not worked on the
problem.  However, in all the discussions regarding the different redox
theories for the As release, I have not heard any mention of C or more
importantly, S isotopes.  These could certainly be used to provide further
data that could be used to assess the redox theories.

Has anyone used these, and if so, what did they show?  If not, I am sure
there is plenty of opportunity for university research projects.

Ben Rees MSc FGS
Geochemist

Dear All:

Many scientists from many different countries have been working on the
groundwater arsenic disaster of Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.  I believe
all of them have the same goal i.e. to find the real cause of arsenic poisoning
and the solution to the problem.  However, it is interesting to note that most
of the investigators rejected the oxidation theory mainly based on the concept
of "low sulfate concentration in groundwater" of Bangladesh and West Bengal of
India.  They did not conduct any detailed investigation(s) to examine the
conditions of the oxidation mechanism for the mobilization of arsenic into
groundwater.  They did not even examine the reasons of the low sulfate
concentration in the groundwater.  The presence of the low sulfate concentration
in the groundwater could be due to many different reasons, some of which Dr.
Bridge, Dr. Fanning and I have indicated in scientific discussions and articles.

The assumption of low sulfate concentration in groundwater for the rejection of
the Oxidation mechanism is a poor scientific judgement.  Therefore it is an
unacceptable criterion for rejecting the oxidation mechanism.

In order to accept or reject the oxidation theory, the conditions of the
oxidation mechanism must be examined with adequate geological, hydrological,
hydrogeological and geochemical data.

How can scientists reject the oxidation theory without proper investigations
when millions of people are being poisoned by deadly arsenic on a daily basis? 
How can they reject the oxidation theory based on improper judgement?  Where are
the reliable geological, hydrological, hydrogeological and geochemiacal
data/parameters that reject the oxidation theory?

Sincerely,

Meer Husain

I am writing the following comments in response to
your Yahoo message (# .139) regarding the issue of
Arsenic contamination problem in Bangladesh and the
effect of implementation of Farakkah barrage. But
before starting my discussions, I would like to
mention that it is not my intention to land in the
debate over the issue of arsenic release by oxidation
or reduction. I just put my ideas in order to get feed
back from the experts working in this field. Certainly
it is not my purpose to confuse any one or to
challenge any one by setting any theoretical uncertain
questions.

I must thank you for your reply on my personal
comments sent to you in August 2001. If I had not
posted the message #. 135 on Yahoo, message list,
probably you would have forgotten to reply it. In
fact, I have gone through all your reply but
unfortunately did not get any explanation or evidence
I am looking for.  What I was expecting from you is to
get feed back or explanations on two things, 1) After
implementation of Farakkah barrage, how withdrawal of
river water dose accelerate the arsenic release
mechanism in Bangladesh. Here it is important that
dissolved oxygen (DO) content in the recharging
groundwater be considered as a dominant factor
influencing the redox process. 2) Some clear evidences
that support your claim of the validity of oxidation
or invalidity of oxyhydroxides reduction theory.

I would like to explain a little more on the above two
issues for clarifications. Groundwater modelers and
investigators in Bangladesh have found that about
0.04% of the total River water flow contributes
directly to the groundwater as recharge when
considering homogeneity in the river bed conductance
and aquifer materials. Usually the oxygen content in
river water is always in equilibrium with atmospheric
oxygen, i.e., about (o.21 atm or 8.35 mg/l). Now if we
think about the conditions before implementation of
Farrakkah Barrage, when the groundwater table
elevation was near to the ground surface and the
amount of dissolved oxygen content in recharging
groundwater used to be more than the present
condition. Because, the share of groundwater recharge
from the river water was greater in the pre-Farakkah
than the post Farakkah condition. As a result, the
upper part of the aquifer usually received more
recharge water enriched with dissolved oxygen (DO) and
eventually used to be more oxic than what it is now.
Literature review also indicates that, as long as the
detectable amount of dissolved oxygen is present in
the groundwater system, the redox potential (Pe)
values always remain high around the pH level of the
neutral water. According to your theory of oxidation,
the arsenoferrous pyrite oxidation is the cause of
arsenic release due to oxygen invasion into the
aquifer.

If you agree with me on the capability of dissolved
oxygen and understanding the presence and importance
of dissolve oxygen in groundwater, how can we disagree
that pre-Farakkah situation should have released more
Arsenic in groundwater than what it is now if we apply
the oxidation theory. My argument here is that the
groundwater of Bangladesh in those pre -Farakkah days
contained more dissolved oxygen and was used to be
more oxic than that of now due to the continuous
addition of larger recharge to the groundwater that
came as a share from the river water. This is the
point I am confused with post Farakkah condition where
dissolved oxygen content in groundwater is suppose to
be less but according to the oxidation theory, you
claim  arsenic release due to oxidation  in the
groundwater during post Farakkah. Possibly, dissolved
oxygen in recharge water could control the overall
redox process in the groundwater before implementation
of the Farakkah Barrage but after implementation DO
content is less.  Here I want to mention that the
lowering of water table would provide atmospheric
oxygen access to the vadose zone but it does not help
much getting oxygen into the deeper layer (Ref.1).

Like many people, I also believe that implementation
of Farakkah might have influence on the arsenic
release process in Bangladesh. But I see the problem
from the context of dissolved oxygen presence in the
recharge water, which helps maintaining higher oxic
condition and redox potential value in the aquifer.
This concept of dissolved oxygen is highly
contradictory to explain the oxidation theory but it
does support indirectly the concept of oxyhydroxide
reduction theory. If you disagree with me, I am ready
to give you further explanation and I would request
you to explain your arguments scientifically and
logically.

I must say, still I am a layman in this area because
it is very unlikely for an individual to be an expert
headmaster in all of the fields you mentioned in your
message # 139. However, I may be able to understand
the depth and dimensions of your four challenging
questions specially number one question (Yahoo message
no.139...). I would like to make some interaction and
I need some more explanation on your set of 4
challenging questions. Neither I am going to answer
your questions now nor I want to support your
oxidation theory unless I get clear evidences. Out of
your four questions (printed in Yahoo message No 139),
the question number one is of more importance from
many perspectives than the rest.  However I would say
that you are just taking the advantages of theoretical
uncertainties in your question number one and I will
try to explain later on how it is full of theoretical
uncertainties.

But before starting that issue, I must acknowledge the
effort of two groups lead by Dr. Dipankar Chakraborti
(SOES group) of India and Mr.R. Nickson (BGS/DPHE
group) to explain their claims according to the result
of their field data collection. To me, it is not
scientific to compare the data of Bangladesh with the
data of West Bengal part of India. So far data
collected by the BGS and DPHE group from the
contaminated wells in Bangladesh may be inadequate but
still it indicates a pattern or relation ship in terms
of amount of arsenic release and the amount of
dissolved Iron (Fe2+) and dissolved oxygen content.
The amount of arsenic release has to be some how
related to the amount of dissolved Iron (Fe2+), or
sulfate (SO4-2 ) in order to claim the validity  of
the issue of   reduction of oxyhydroxides theory or
oxidation of arseno-pyrite respectively. There must be
some clear geochemical evidences in the flow-path of
groundwater from recharging to the discharging point
in order to establish any claim.  Yes, you are correct
that there are lot more things to be considered before
we make any final conclusion. We may not be able to
hook up all the evidences sequentially in a real
environmental system but we need to get some authentic
clue in order to reject or accept any hypothesis.
Being unable to answer your four questions does not
necessarily mean that your hypothesis is correct. Your
question may be full of theoretical uncertainty, and
you may have taken the advantages of it. We will now
investigate the uncertainty in your question number
one.

Your No.1 question(message 139): 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 Dug-wells for thousands of years and
from thousands of tubewells for 60 to 70 years, prior
to the 1970s?

Your number one question is related to three major
issues 1) Arsenic adsorption, 2) arsenic
transportation or flashing ability in solution and 3)
influence of arsenic poisoning on the health of
Bangladeshi people who have been drinking contaminated
water since 1970. It seems to me that your number one
question is vast and full of theoretical uncertainty.
As large-scale information on geochemical property of
the contaminated aquifers is not yet fully available,
one can not be able to satisfy you or you should not
be satisfied unless the answer of the following issues
are available.  In order to satisfy you on number one
question , we need to make sure that we know the
answer of the following questions as well as you have
the answers with you.

1) Do we really know whether arsenic is being
mobilized or transported as ionic form or colloidal
form in the groundwater system of Bangladesh?

2) If it does move as a colloidal particle, do we know
the nature of its colloidal stability? As we all know
that the stability of the colloidal suspensions and
the ion exchange properties of solids and ionic
strength of the solution are closely related to the
behavior of the double layer. And the stability of a
colloidal suspension depends on the thickness of the
double layer or Gouy layer. Do we know the interaction
between colloidal stability, ion exchange properties
of the sediment and ionic strength of the arsenic
contaminated groundwater solution in the contaminated
aquifer of Bangladesh? And we need this information
along the flow path of groundwater from recharge to
the discharge point at the Bay of Bengal Sea. The
modeling of those interactions can probably give us a
clear picture of only the colloidal transportation
nature of arsenic.

3) If we say, arsenic does not move in colloidal form,
rather arsenic moves in ionic form in groundwater. Do
we know the ionic transportation nature of arsenic in
Bangladesh groundwater? How much we know about the
ionic transportation specially when the ions are
subjected to hydraulic pressure gradient while passing
through the micropores of the aquifer sediments.
Probably the answer is highly uncertain.

4) If arsenic is transported in groundwater neither in
ionic form nor in colloidal form, let us assume it
dose move with groundwater as non-reactive form. Now
it moves with groundwater velocity with a certain
retardation factor that varies with the porosity and
bulk density of the solid sediment. How long do we
need to dispose off contaminated groundwater from the
recharge zone to the discharge zone or to the Bay of
Bengal under low hydraulic gradients? Certainly it
requires thousands of years, to be flashed out under
low hydraulic gradient.  Even we know the groundwater
velocity or travel time how can we be sure that the
water trapped in that pore-space of sediments is
exactly the as same as the water incorporate during
the sedimentation period?

All of these above issues are really uncertain and we
don't know much about those. As you have set the
question number.1, would you please let us know how
you could be satisfied without knowing the answer of
the above issues I mentioned, the most of which
answers are really uncertain? If you disagree with me,
again I would like to request you to please explain
scientifically and logically so that we can be
convinced.

I must thank the investigators engaged in Dug-well
data collection in Bangladesh. I appreciate their
efforts and hard labor to explain and relate these
informations to the arsenic release mechanism. When a
contaminated aquifer is exposed to the atmospheric
oxygen under a dug well, it does not contain any
dissolved arsenic in water.  Whereas a well installed
near the close vicinity of dug-well, show arsenic
contamination in the same aquifer. It certainly
reflects the role of dissolved oxygen and it can be
directly linked to the reduction hypothesis instead of
oxidation theory.

In conclusion, I would say again that it is not my
intention to accept or reject any hypothesis unless i
got the clear evidence of pattern or relationship. I
just put my opinion to get feed back from you and  any
other interested person.

With Regards

Md.Nazrul Islam
Biosystems Engineering,
Michigan State University

Sir/Mem,

I am a new member to this group and have started working on the
arsenic pollution in the parts of West Bengal. Please if you kindly have
bore hole data logs, degitised topo maps, drainage, contour then kindly
send me so that it will be easier for me to work.

Waiting for a early response.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RAJARAM PUROHIT, Research Scholar
JUBILEE HALL # 73
University Of Delhi
DELHI,110007
Ph: 91-11-766-6265 / 7826 / 7501 (Fax)
           E-MAIL:rajaram_purohit@...
                  rajaram_purohit@...
====================================================================


On Fri, 26 Oct 2001, Sara Bennett wrote:

> Dear Rajaram Purohit
>
> Please repost your message to arsenic-source@yahoogroups.com .  This is the
appropriate place for it, and you are more likely to get a response from this
group.
>
> All the best,
>
> Sara Bennett
> ACN/ACIC
> http://bicn.com/acic/
>
>
>
> > Sir,
> >      Very recently i have started working as a Ph.D. Scholar in the
> > University of Delhi on Geochemistry of Aquifer in West Bengal with
> > special reference to Arsenic Contamination. if you kindly help me
> > then send all the recent maps and bore-log that you all have, so that
> > it will be easier on my part to start the work.
> >
> >     waiting for a very early response.
> >
> > Rajaram Purohit, Ph.D
> > Department of Geology
> > University of Delhi
> > Delhi-7, India
>
>

His Majesty's Government of Nepal, Department of Water Supply and Sewerage
(DWSS), Water Quality Improvement Section (Where I work for) with the financial
support from UNICEF/Nepal and WHO/Nepal have been conducting the "Terai Tubewell
(Shallow) Arsenic Testing Program"  in 20 districts adjoining to Indian Boarder
and one of the most far eastern district is only 26 km away from Bangladesh. We
have recently found that out of 4000 DWSS tested tubewells about 2.7 % of
tubewells have more than 50 ppb concentration and about 8.03 % of tubewells have
more than 10 ppb (WHO Guideline Value). Furthermore, considering the test
results of other agencies such as Nepal Red Cross about 5 % tubewells (out of
10049) have more than 50 ppb and 24 % have more than 10 ppb of Arsenic. Also,
few Arsenicosis patients have been identified in those arsenic affected
districts. As testing program progresses, these statistics would inevitably
increase.

Therefore, to keep updated with recent developments in these sectors, I
would like to get more information regarding testing methods and their
reliability, mitigation measures, community awareness programs, and health
related findings on behalf of my division.

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

With Personal Regards,

Amar Neku
POBox 8975 EPC 1881, Kathmandu
Tel  977-01-531078 / 977-01-531373
e-mail: aneku@...

(Note:  comments in square brackets [] are by the group moderator.)

=======================

Dear Mr. Nazrul Islam:

In your letter of August 06, 2001 [pers. comm. to Meer Hussain; appears at the
end of this post] you indicated that you are a layman and you requested me of my
opinion on your explanation related to the oxidation and reduction mechanisms
that you presented in your letter.  I did not make any comments on your letter
because the mechanism of groundwater arsenic poisonoing in Bengal delta is
related to the geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and geochememistry.

Regarding your post of September 28, 2001 [arsenic-source post #135, at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arsenic-source/message/135 ]
I would like to inform you that you did not understand our questions properly.
Therefore, your answer, explanation, comments, and interpretation of our
questions are not correct.

In order to understand and answer these questions, one must have accademic
training and sound knowledge on geology, hydrology, hydrogeology and
geochemistry and working experience on the investigation, monitoring and
remediation of soil and groundwater contamination projects as well as protection
of public health and environment.

The source and the cause of groundwater arsenic poisoning must be established
based on correct geological, hydrological, hydrogeological and geochemical data
and factual evidence, not based on imagination, speculation, belief,
misconception, unreliable data and improper judgment.

In order to verify the validity of oxyhydroxide reduction and oxidation
theories, Dr. Bridge and I have developed the following 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?

According to our analysis it appears that the oxyhydroxide reduction theory is a
wrong theory for the mobilization of arsenic into the groundwater of Bangladesh
and West Bengal of India.

We requested scientists who rejected the oxidation theory and proposed the
oxyhydroxide reduction theory for the mobilization of arsenic into groundwater
of Bangladesh and West Bengal of India, to answer the above-mentioned questions,
because these questions are directly related to the mechanism of the groundwater
arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.

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 occuring 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.

Dr. Prosun Bhattacharya claims to be a pioneer of the oxyhydroxide reduction
theory for the mobilization of arsenic into groundwater in BDP.  I requested him
to present data that supports the oxyhydroxide reduction theory.  He did not
present any data in support of this theory and he could not even come up with
any answers to these questions as of yet.

Mr. Ross Nickson and Dr. MacArthur et. al. proposed the same theory and
BGS/DPHE/MML investigators also accepted this theory.  We have reviewed their
data that they used in support of the oxyhydroxide reduction theory which appear
to be inadequate, unreliable, and incorrect.

Some of these scientists are very knowledgeable and well experienced
professionals.  We have been debating the oxidation and reduction issues with
them for quite some time.  They properly understand these questions.  These are
professional questions and they cannot be ignored.

The oxyhydroxide reduction proponents rejected the oxidation theory mainly
because of low sulfate concentration in groundwater, but they did not study the
oxidation process at all.  The low sulfate concentration does not really reject
the oxidation theory.  In order to accept or reject the oxidation theory, the
theory must be studied with adequate geological, hydrological, hydrogeological
and geochemical data.  These data must be collected, examined, and interpreted
by experienced professionals.

The post-Farakka discharge data of the Ganges River that I presented in my last
post, is one of many critical hydrological datum that the BGS/DPHE/MML
investigators did not consider in their Groundwater Arsenic Poisoning study in
Bangladesh.  As a result, they failed to understand the relation of the
diversion of river water and the over-pumping of groundwater with oxidation
mechanism for releasing arsenic into the groundwater of Bengal Basin.

Mr. Islam, you may not comprehend the importance of the pre-Farakka and
post-Farakka hydrological data of the Ganges and other common rivers of
Bangladesh and India with the oxidation process, and it does not surprise me at
all, but BGS/MML investigators cannot ignore these valuable data.  If the
BGS/DPHE/MML investigators, Ross Nickson, and MacArthur et. al. and Bhattacharya
et. al. can not answer these questions, then obviously a thorough investigation
needs to be conducted to find the real mechanism responsible for the
mobilization of arsenic into groundwater.  We are waiting for the answers to
these questions from BGS/DPHE/MML investgators, Nickson & McArthur et. al. and
Bhattacharya et. al. since they proposed the oxyhydroxide reduction theory and
rejected the oxidation theory for the mobilization of arsenic into groundwater
of Bengal Basin.

I strongly believe that the answer to these questions will give scientists, 
journalists, environmentally concerned people, and the policy makers of
Bangladesh and West Bengal of India a clear picture about the real mechanism
responsible for the mobilization of arsenic into groundwater of Bangladesh and
West Bengal of India.

Sincerely,

Meer Husain

----- Original Message -----
From: <tuluislam@...>
To: "Meer Husain" <meerh@...>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Mechanism of GW As Poisoning? cc: of msg to Drs. Imam &
Acharyya

> Dear Mr. Meer Husain,
>
> I would like to add some comments on your message #114 . Regarding the
> issue of oxidation & reduction theory of Arsenic release in
> Banagladesh, I appreciate your valuable and thoughtful comments and
> questions to the experts in this field.
> Althogh, I am not a chemist but I have been interested in this problem
> because I am from Banagldesh. As a layman, I read out both oxidation
> and reduction theory propsed by Dr. Dipanker chakrabarti and his group
> from India,   Nickson et al. and McArthur group from Banagladesh .
> Again,  I am saying as a layman, that both oxidation and reduction
> theory are acceptable but not for the same place. May be oxidation is
> more acceptable for west Bengal part and reduction process is more
> applicable to Banagladesh part because both sides have strong
> evidences to support their claim like, Arsenic is found directly
> correlated to Iron content(Fe3+)in Bangladesh.
>
> But if pyrite oxidation is the major process responsible for arsenic
> in Bangaldesh, why the groundwaters do not content enough sulfate,
> amount arsenic in water should be directly related to the amount of
> sulfate compounds, rather than to the amount of Fe3+. Also   oxidation
> process will increase the pH of water,in that case, contaminated wells
> water should have pH less than 6 or 5.
>  It does confuse me most when some one says oxidation is only the
> major  process responsible for arsenic in BD, then I have some
> comments, (1) If pyrite is the source of arsenic, then only the upper
> part of the aquifer should be most  contaminated and the water layer
> in contact to the atmospheric oxygen must have higher concentration
> than the lower part, I think this is not the case in Bangaldesh, rathe
> we have been told that  dug wells are not yet contaminated by arsenic
> even in the hotspots areas of BD.(2) According to the theory of
> groundwater Engineering, the screen is placed at the bottom of the
> well, groundwater velocity is maximum near the vicinity of
> well-screen, in that case, during pumping arsenic free water should
> come out first and gradually after a long period of time, the well
> should pum contaminated water. So far I know, contaminated water
> molecules will require may be several days to reach from the upper
> part of the aquifer down to the well-screen. It depnds on the average
> groundwater velocity, porosity etc.So far I know , no contaminated
> well shows the seasonal or daily concentration variation in
> Bnagaldesh durong pumping.On contrary it pumps out water at a
> constant arsenic concentration rate.
>
> So it is very hard to be convinced that oxidation is the only major
> process responsible.On the other hand, reduction process can be
> acceptable as oxidation process fails to show us enough evidence to
> believe.
>
> (3) If oxidation is the cause of arsenic, then dug well should have
> enough arsenic concentration in it.
>
> It make sense to me that if we can maintain the oxic condition in the
> groundwater, there is no chance of any development of reducing
> condition. Under oxic conditon, availabity of reducing agent would be
> less, so there will be no reduction process, no release of any
> contamianant to the groundwater.
>
> So, I belive that the presence of dissolved oxygen in the groundwater
> is an important factor. Hydrology of BD has been changed quickly over
> the last fiew decades because of so many reasons. The contribution of
> recharge water from the rivers and streams to the groundwaters are
> less than any time of the past. Also , as a result of more abstraction
> of groundwater, the lowering of water table occured in BD. Oxygen can
> not penetrate down to the water table as quickly as it requires,
> because it takes several months for the atmospheric oxygen to diffuse
> down to the depth of  10 meter at the concentration level of pO2=0.21
> atm.   It is very likely that amount of dissolved oxygen(DO) in the
> recharge water is consumed by the Dissolved Organic Carbon(DOC). The
> rate of DO consumption is faster than the rate of Atmospheric oxygen
> suply to the water table. So there prevails a sort of reduce
> condition, and arsenic is released from the associated minerals like
> Ferric Oxihydroxides or oxides.
>
> Finally,  I would like to say that I dont want to believe or reject
> the both oxidation or reduction theory but I must say that  dissolved
> oxygen in the aquifer is a most important factor that controll the Eh
> pH and arsenic release to the aquifer system. Deeper aquifer should be
> always arsenic free because it is more oxic than the middle layer. The
> groundwater in the deeper layer is recharge by the regional throgh-
> flow which contains more dissolved oxygen.So I think that lowering of
> water water table due to over extraction and shortage of surafce water
> in the rivers are mostly responsible for Arsenic contamiantion in BD.
>
>
> If you please let me know your opinion, I would be grateful to you.
>
> Nazrul Islam

I have been engaged in some precipitative technique development during the past
two years and have probably devised a method for Arsenic precipitation level
ranging from 1000ppm to 50 ppb.

Since this technique may be a boon for the people of Bangladesh and West Bengal,
I need your help for getting few original samples of UNDER GROUND WATER
CONTAMINATED WITH DIFFERENT DEGREES OF ARSENIC CONTENTS.

The study carried out in our laboratory included only samples of different
concentrations of arsenic prepared for carrying out this study and excluded real
test samples.

Could you please help me?  My address is:

Dr. Pankaj,
Reader in Chemistry,
Dayalbagh Educational Institute (Deemed University) Dayalbagh,
AGRA 282 005, INDIA.

Thanking you
Sincerely yours

Pankaj
pankaj2 @ sancharnet.in

Normally both in Bangladesh and West Bengal there exist a good co-relation
between arsenic and iron concentration in tube-well water (with few exceptions).
Please read the publications of School of Environmental Studies (annexed) and
you will find the information.  Also please read the BGS reports.

Sincerely yours,

Uttam Kumar Chowdhury
For Dr. Dipankar Chakraborti
Director and Head
School of Environmental Studies
Jadavpur University
Calcutta – 700 032, India
Tel: 91 33 4735233
Mobile: 98300 29352
Fax: 91 33 4734266
Email: dcsoesju @ vsnl.com

I have read in some articles on the co-occurrence of iron and arsenic in
Bangladesh. Some articles say that there is a positive correlation
and some others at there is no correlation. Where can I find any data
about co-occurrence of Arsenic and iron? what is the minimum amount
of iron present?

Anitha Sharma

From: Md. Nazrul Islam <islamtuluus @ yahoogroups.com>

Date: 26 September 2001


I am writing in response to the message of Meer
Husain (Date:  Sun Aug 26, 2001, Subj: Roots of GW As Poisoning in BGD & W
Bengal India.

It seems from the messages posted in arsenic -source
group that the processes of groundwater arsenic
contamination in Bangladesh has been explained from
the perspective of two opposite theories like
Reduction and Oxidation of arsenic rich minerals.
Still it is not known exactly which process is
responsible for mobilization of arsenic in
groundwater. It is evident that Mr. Meer Hussein &
SOES groups believe in oxidation theory and BGS/DPH
group believes in reduction of oxihydroxide theory.
Some experts opined these arguments are like which one
is first either chicken or egg? In order to verify the
validity of reduction theory, Mr.Meer Hussein asked
the following questions.

1) If groundwater arsenic problem in Bangladesh is
natural and due to reduction process, how arsenic has
been existed in the Bengal Aquifer for thousand of
years without being flashed away into the sea.

2) How did people escape arsenic disease for the last
hundred years?

3)  There are no past medical evidence of arsenic
disease in Bangladesh, so how do we believe that
reduction of Iron oxihydroxides are responsible for
arsenic mobilization.

4) In addition to that BGS /DPH investigators did not
considered the change in pre Farakka and post Farakkah
hydrogeochemical changes in Bangladesh. What could be
the impact of large scale - withdrawal of surface
water from the major river system on the arsenic
problem in the groundwater?

I appreciate Mr. Meer Hosanna's thought specially
regarding question number 4, Post and pre Farkkah
hydrogeological evaluation that BGS did not consider
or take into account to explain arsenic problem in
Bangladesh. But I think question number 1 and 4 are
more important than 2 and 3 regarding explaining the
oxidation and reduction theory.  However answer of
question 1 and 4 indirectly support the reduction
theory. Let me explain how.

I also  believe that arsenic problem in groundwater of
Bangladesh might be due to the joint influence of
Farakkah Barrage and over extraction of groundwater
for irrigation. All will agree that surface water
recharge to the groundwater have greatly reduced after
implementation of Farakkah barrage in 1972. It is well
known that surface recharge contains ample amount of
dissolved oxygen (DO) in it and it contains sufficient
dissolved oxygen that could keep the groundwater more
oxic round the year.

Also oxygen diffusion rate (ODR) into the Groundwater
and DO concentration mainly varies with the depth and
position of water table. Oxygen concentration in
vadose zone generally reduces due to lowering of
groundwater table. Both ODR and DO concedtrtion
decreas with depth. Analysis indicates that diffusive
supply of atmospheric oxygen into the groundwater is
less if water table travels down to the deeper layer.
The more the water table travels down, the less
concentration of dissolved oxygen prevails in
groundwater system. In the past, especially before
implementation of Farakkah barrage, the upper part of
groundwater of Bangladesh was used to remain in oxic
condition round the year. It was oxic because of
continuous supply of recharge water from surface water
flow.  In absence of surface recharge enriched with DO
(dissolved oxygen), it will becomes anoxic or develops
a sort of mild reducing condition, which can
eventually release arsenic from the body of Iron
oxyhydroxides.


According to Mr. Meer Hussein, if Pyrite oxidation
process  is responsible for arsenic release, in other
ward, oxygen is responsible for arsenic release, the
top layer of the aquifer should be more arsenic
contaminated before implementation of Farakkah too.
Then my question is how the influence of Farakkah did
contribute negatively in releasing arsenic in to the
groundwater, which was used to be oxic all around the
year in the past.

Again, if arsenic is released due to oxidation of
pyrite, then there should be a concentration gradient
immediately after starting of pump specially in Deep
Tubewells system. But so far there is no evidence of
such concentration gradient during pumping was found
in Bangladesh.

Regarding question number 2, I would like to mention
that the recent dug well records indicate that as long
as the groundwater remains in close contact with
atmospheric oxygen, it is not contaminated with
arsenic because of Iron oxidation ( Fe2+ to Fe3+) and
simultaneous adsorption of arsenic onto its body and
precipitation of Iron  as Fe3+.  Again Dugwell records
may support the idea of arsenic adsorption by
oxidation or indirectly arsenic release by
reduction.This evidences goes aswell in favor of
BGS/DPH reduction theory.

Vegetable, crop and plant samples after collection were stored in zip-lock bags/
polyethylene bags and kept cool until processed in the laboratory.

Samples were washed thoroughly with tap water to remove soil and other particles
and finally washed in sonicator with deionized water/ mili Q water for several
times.

Prior to sample washing, plants consisting of both root (below soil surface) and
shoot (above soil surface) were separated into root, stem, leaf and fruit.

The matter was then air dried and finally dried at 600C for about 72 hours.

Dry samples made fine powder by agate pestle and mortar, sieved and stored in
air tight bags.

Uttam Kumar Chowdhury
School of Environmental Studies
Jadavpur University
Calcutta – 700 032, India
Tel: 91 33 4735233
Fax: 91 33 4734266
Email: dcsoesju @ vsnl.com

I would like to know how to preserve food samples (fish, vegetables,
plants, etc.) for determination of arsenic.

Yours sincerely,

Anitha Sharma

We are doing everything we can to increase the number of registrations
(currently 75), exhibitors and sponsors for the GRA "Arsenic in Groundwater"
Symposium.

I am writing to ask for your consideration in distributing the information below
to your colleagues, membership or anyone you think might want to attend the
Symposium.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kathy Snelson
Executive Director
Groundwater Resources Association of California
915 L Street, Suite 1000
Sacramento, CA  95814
916/446-3626; 916/442-0382 (fax)
execdir @ grac.org
www.grac.org <http://www.grac.org/>

--------

The Directors and Staff of the Groundwater Resources Association of
California are deeply saddened at the recent events in America, and we have
responded with help and compassion.  At the same time, we believe it is
appropriate to move ahead with our previously planned Symposium, "Arsenic in
Groundwater" as the issue is pressing and important.  Accordingly, we have
waived the late registration fee of $50 (for registrations received after
September 19, 2001).

We wish all of you the best during these very trying times, and we hope you
will still consider attending the Symposium or circulating this email to
your colleagues.  Thank you.

Arsenic Symposium
October 3, 2001
Radisson Hotel, Sacramento California

Co - Sponsor
  Montgomery Watson Harza

Reception Sponsor
LFR Levine-Fricke

Break Sponsor
Bookman-Edmonston


The Groundwater Resources Association will be hosting the third symposium in
The Series on Groundwater Contaminants: Arsenic. Cooperating organizations
include the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH), Water
Education Foundation (WEF), California Groundwater Association (CGA),
National Ground Water Association (NGWA), American Ground Water Trust
(AGWT), The Professional Environmental Marketing Association (PEMA),
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), and The Natural Resources
Section of the California State Bar.


Program Agenda - Wednesday, October 3, 2001
   _____


8:00-8:45 am -- Registration and Pastries

8:45-9:15 am -- Welcome and Overview of the Problem and Day
         Tim Parker, President, GRA
         Dr. Lee Shull, Principal/Senior Toxicologist, Montgomery Watson Harza

9:15-10:00 am -- Session One: Arsenic Characteristics, Geochemistry &
Distribution
         Moderators: Richard Shatz, Bookman-Edmonston
         Martin Steinpress, Montgomery Watson Harza

         Arsenic In Groundwater in the United States: Occurrence & Geochemistry
         Allan Welch, USGS Water Resources Division, Reno, NV
         Sources of Arsenic Groundwater Contamination
         Dr. T.R. Hathaway, DTSC, Cal-EPA

10:15-10:30 am -- Break

10:30-12:00 pm -- Session Two: Risk/Toxicology and Regulations
         Moderators: Paul Parmentier, IT Corporation
         Dr. Lee Shull, Montgomery Watson Harza

         Discussion on the MCL
         Bruce Macler, US EPA Region 9
         Risk Assessment for Arsenic in Drinking Water, Cal-EPA PHG
         Dr. Robert A. Howd, Chief, Water Toxicology Unit, OEHHA, Cal-EPA
         Implementation of the Public Health Goals and the Future of Drinking
             Water Standards for Arsenic
         Dr. David Spath, Drinking Water Division Chief, CA DHS
         Sampling and Analysis of Arsenic and Arsenic Speciation
         Bart Simmons, DTSC, Cal-EPA

12:00-1:30 pm -- Lunch: Keynote Presentation, TBA

1:45-3:00 pm -- Session Three:Treatment & Remediation
         Moderators: Zaid Chowdhury, Malcolm Pirnie
         Rula Deeb, Malcolm Pirnie

         Implementing Arsenic Controls for Groundwater Utilities
         Michelle Frey, McGuire Environmental Consultants
         Arsenic Chemistry and Traditional Water Treatment Processes for
               Arsenic Removal
         Dr. Steve Reiber, HDR, Inc.
         Treatment for Arsenic in the Context of Remediation
         Joseph Drago, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
         Innovations in Water Treatment Processes for Arsenic Removal
         Dr. Sunil Kommineni, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

3:00-3:15 pm -- Break

3:15-4:45 pm -- Session Four: Social and Political Impacts, and Legal Issues

         Moderators: Thomas Johnson, LFR Levine Fricke
         Debbie Reid, KOMEX

         Panel: Krista Clark, Association of California Water Agencies
         Joseph Gonzalez, Esq., Masry & Vititoe
         James Goodrich, Water Resources Consultant, Chair, AGWSE Div. of
             NGWA
         John Gregory, Esq., LeBouef, Lamb, Greene & MacRae LLP
         Dr. Janet Hering, California Institute of Technology
         Susan Umshler, Esq., P.E., Law & Resource Planning Associates

4:45-5:00 pm -- Conclusion
         Tim Parker

5:00-6:00 pm -- Reception

   _____

Exhibitor/Sponsorship Opportunities

Exhibit and sponsorship opportunites are available for the Symposium -- for
a detailed description and order form, contact GRA Executive Director Kathy
Snelson by phone (916)446-3626 or e-mail  <mailto:execdir@...>
execdir@... or use the attachment below.

MCLE Credits

An application is pending for approval of this program for minimum
continuing legal education credits by the State Bar of California.

Symposium Site & Accommodations

Radisson Hotel  <http://www.radissonsac.com/> Sacramento - 500 Leisure Lane,
Sacramento, CA 95815 ~ Tel: (916) 922-2020
A block of sleeping rooms is available for Symposium participants on a first
come, first served basis at the rate of $109 single/double plus tax and $139
for a Lakeside Room, single/double plus tax. Make your reservations by
calling the Radisson at (916) 922-2020 or (800) 333-3333 and identify
yourself as a GRA Symposium participant. The above rates will be available
through September 11, 2001.

Registratration / More Information

For more information, contact GRA Executive Director Kathy Snelson by phone
(916) 446-3626 or e-mail execdir @ grac.org

Please find herewith two references for analysis of hair samples using AAS.

1. Arsenic in Ground Water in Six Districts of West Bengal, India: The Biggest
Arsenic Calamity in the World.  Part 2. Arsenic Concentration in Drinking Water,
Hair, Nails, Urine, Skin-scale and Liver Tissue (biopsy) of the Affected People.
Dipankar Das, Amit Chatterjee, Badal Mandal, Gautam Samanta, Bhabatosh Chanda &
Dipankar Chakraborti. The Analyst, 120, 917-924, 1995.

2. Flow Injection Hydride Generation Atomic Absorption Spectrometry for
determination of arsenic in water and biological samples from arsenic affected
districts of west Bengal, India and Bangladesh.  Samanta, T. Roy Chowdhury, B.
K. Mandal, B.K. Biswas, U.K. Chowdhury, G. K. Basu, R. Chanda, D. Lodh and D.
Chakraborti.  Microchemical Journal 62, 174-191, 1999.

Sincerely yours,

  Mohammad Mahmudur Rahman
  Ph.D. student of Dr. Dipankar Chakraborti
  School of Environmental Studies
  Jadavpur university, Calcutta-700032, India.
  Tel: 91 33 4735233, Fax: 91 33 4734266
  E-mail: dcsoesju@...

I am looking for a protocol of hair sampling to test for arsenic
levels using atomic absorption spectro-photometer (AAS). How much
weight of hair should I use? How do I eliminate the protein and
prepare for spectro-photometer?

Sanitary dug-well [Dug-well with filtration unit]

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/21-8drawing.jpg
http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/18-8dug-well_text.jpg

In order to provide arsenic free safe drinking water to the community the
Arsenic Research Group [BD] with the financial assistance of PRPA of
Grameen Trust has completed the installation of two 'Sanitary Dug-wells' [a
modified form of dug-well with additional filtration system] in the
village Ichapur, Thana - Daudkandi, District - Comilla. Each dugwell is
capable of supplying at least 1000 liters of safe drinking water per day.

Dug-well water has been observed to yield arsenic-safe water even in areas
where tube-wells yield water having unacceptable level of arsenic. The
'Sanitary dug-well' is basically a combination of modified dug-well and a
filtration unit. The  'Sanitary dug-well' was designed to prevent
contamination of the well during the process of water collection by
multiple users with their own buckets. Moreover, traditional designs
allowed for intentional tampering of the well water by unscrupulous
elements.  The sanitary dug-wells are required to be installed at least 50
feet away from animal housing and pit latrines.

The characteristics of the designed 'Sanitary Dug-well' are as follows:
a. The dug-well having an internal diameter of ~3.5 feet was installed
digging down to a depth of ~30 feet.
b. Reinforced concrete rings of ~3.5 feet diameter and 2 feet height were
used to form the wall of the well.
c. The mouth of the well was raised up to a height of  about 3 ft above
ground level.
d. An impervious platform extending from the external surface of the well
to a distance of ~2 feet has been included to reduce/eliminate the
possibility of seepage of surface water into the well alongside the casing
of the well.
e. A brick house allowing ventilation and preventing direct access to the
well has been constructed.
f. The house was fitted with a roof to prevent contamination of the well by
bird droppings and dust.
g. Water from the dug-well is pumped up by a tubewell installed into a
filtration unit to remove turbidity and reduce microbial load (if any).
h. Beneficiaries can only collect water from the tap of the filtration
unit. But in order to do so  the beneficiary will have to pump same amount
of water into the filtration unit  from the dug-well. Thus, a continuous
supply of water is maintained in the filtration system.

For further details contact:
Coordinator
Arsenic Research Group [BD]
Phone: 882 99 80
Email: gem @ global-bd.net

THE ROOTS OF THE GROUNDWATER ARSENIC POISONING IN BANGLADESH AND WEST BENGAL OF
INDIA

By Meer Husain

The BGS/DPHE/MML investigators and many other scientists believe that the
groundwater arsenic poisoning in the Bengal Basin is occuring by a natural
process. They proposed the "Oxyhydroxide Reduction Theory" as the main
mechanism responsible for the mobilization of arsenic into groundwater.  On the
other hand we believe that the oxidation of arsenic bearing minerals in the
aquifer sediments is the main cause of the groundwater arsenic poisoning of
Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.  In order to verify the validity of these
theories, we have developed the following questions and requested many
scientists 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 escape 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 1970's?

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, escaped signs of arsenic poisoning?

The Oxyhydroxide Reduction Theory is directly related to question #1.  The
historical groundwater used data and historical medical data reject
the "Oxyhydroxide Reduction Theory" proposed by BGS/DPHE/MML, Nickson &
McArthur et.al., Bhattacharya et.al. and other scientists for the mobilization
of arsenic into the groundwater of the Bengal Basin.  The data they presented
in support of the Oxyhydroxide Reduction Theory appears to be unreliable, and
wrong data. This theory is based on misconception, speculation, and inadequate
hydrological, hydrogeological, and geochemical data. Therefore this theory is
an unacceptable theory for the mobilization of arsenic into the groundwater of
Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.

The proponents of the Oxyhydroxide Reduction hypothesis rejected the "Pyrite
Oxidation Theory" but they did not conduct any investigation(s) to verify the
validity of the Oxidation theory at all.  The BGS/DPHE/MML investigators
collected a lot of information but they did not collect adequate pre and post
Farakka hydrological and hydrogeological data.  As a result, they failed to
understand the role of the over-pumping of groundwater and diversion of river
water and their relationship with the Oxidation mechanism for the mobilization
of arsenic into the groundwater of the Bengal Basin.  The second question is
directly related to the OXIDATION theory.  According to our analysis, it
appears that the diversion of river water and over-pumping of groundwater are
the main roots of the groundwater arsenic poisoning in the Bengal Basin.  The
groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh began after 1975 whereas it began
in West Bengal of India soon after 1960.

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, hydrogeological and hydrochemical 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 environmentaly 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(Dec-May)

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 Avg Annual 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 that after 1975 why Bangladesh is having severe
environmental problems including groundwater arsenic poisoning.

The BGS/DPHE/MML investigators probably did not know the recent human activities
(such as 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.

I as a Professional geologist am respectfully requesting the BGS/DPHE/MML
investigators and all other scientists who have a hard time accepting the
Oxidation theory as the cause of the groundwater arsenic poisoning in
Bangladesh, to take a look at the attatched map. This map shows the
dams/barrages on the common rivers of Bangladesh and India.  I am requesting
them to collect the river water discharge data of all these rivers(pre and post
construction).  The pre and post dam/barrage river water discharge data and
adequate groundwater hydrological data will give us a clear understanding about
how the over-pumping of groundwater and the diversion of river water are
causing the groundwater arsenic poisoning in the Bengal Basin. These data will
give us a clear picture about the source and the cause of the groundwater
arsenic poisoning and the solution to the arsenic disaster in Bangladesh and
West Bengal of India.

[Meer Hussain posted two messages with the same subject line and message bodies
with some identical (it would appear) paragraphs, and some differing paragraphs.
Before distributing these messages, I have labelled these two messages Part 1
and Part 2, and deleted from Part 2 any paragraphs appearing in both.  These
deletions are shown by an ellipsis in square brackets [...]. - Moderator]

[...]

Dear All,  please take a look at the river water discharge data of three major
rives of Bangladesh at the table below which is taken from table 2.2, page 2-2
of the BGS/DPHE/MML phase-1 investigative report "GROUNDWATER STUDIES FOR
ARSENIC CONTAMINATION IN BANGLADESH".  I wonder how these investigators can
ignore the post Farakka data which are the most important data of groundwater
arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh.  India's 26 years of unilateral water diversion
from the Ganges River by Farakka barrage in West Bengal of India not only
created environmental problems in Bangladesh, but it also created numerous
severe environmental problems in the upstream regions of India.

Average Monthly Discharge of Major Rivers(PRE-FARAKKA)

Ganges R          Brahmaputra R-Bahadurabad Meghna R-Bhairab Bazar
Hardinge Bridge

Month                Flow(Cu.M/S)                               Flow(Cu.M/S)
Flow(Cu.M/S)

Jan                    3113                                            5194
594

Feb                    2712                                           4308
495

Mar                    2312                                           4711
635

Apr                    2056                                           6823
937

May                   1971                                          15844
1934

Jun                    4311                                           32488
3821

Jul                     17871                                         44080
7814

Aug                   37546                                         45107
8279

Sep                   36970                                         36295
8222

Oct                   17244                                         21955
6239

Nov                   7109                                          10477
3078

Dec                  4195                                           6737
990

================================================================================\
============

Annual            137,408                                        234,019
43,039

Discharge are long term monthly average (pre-Farakka Barrage) in Cu.M/S taken
from Rashid(1991) BGS/DPHE/MML

Dear All, it seems that the DPHE/BGS/MML investigators probably did not realize
the post-Farakka environmental problems that are related to the diversion of
river water and over-pumping of groundwater in Bangladesh.  As a result they did
not collect and analyze the post-Farakka hydrological data of Bangladesh.  The
post-Farakka hydrological data are essential to understand the source and cause
of the groundwater arsenic poisoning and solution to the problem.  The 26 years
of  post-Farakka river water discharge data will reveal whether the groundwater
arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh is occuring under a natural process or is a
man-made disaster.  I request the BGS/DPHE/MML investigators and other scintists
to share the average monthly, annual, as well as dry season-post-Farakka river
water discharge data(1975 to present) of major rivers of Bangladesh with us.

Sincerely,

Meer Husain

[Meer Hussain posted two messages with the same subject line and message bodies
with some identical (it would appear) paragraphs, and some differing paragraphs.
Before distributing these messages, I have labelled these two messages Part 1
and Part 2, and deleted from Part 2 any paragraphs appearing in both.  These
deletions are shown by an ellipsis in square brackets [...]. - Moderator]

Dear All:

We believe the groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh is a recent man-made
environmental disaster.  Prior to 1975 the country had never faced an
environmental crisis of the present magnitude.  After 1975, in Bangladesh
over-pumping of groundwater for irrigation was necessary due to the shortage of
river water as a result of India's  unilateral diversion of water from the
Ganges, Tista and 28 other common rivers of Bangladesh and India for the last 26
years.  The Ganges River is one of the largest rivers in the world.  In
Bangladesh, prior to 1975, the magnitude of the problems listed below were
unknown.

1. Groundwater Arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh, 2. Severe Floods(1988 and 1998),
3. Depletion of Surface Water Resources,

4. Depletion of Groundwater Resources, 5. Desertification, 6. Extinction of
aquatic species, 7. Impact on fish industry,

8. Drop of organic matter content in the soil, 9. Destruction of Agriculture and
Horticulture, 10. Inland saline water intrusion,

11. Loss of navigable waterways, 12. Riverbank erosion, 13. Climate change, 14.
Loss of professions,

15. Outbreak of environmental diseases, 16. Land subsidence (from water table
lowering), 17. Social unsuitability due to symptoms of arsenic

poisoning etc.

The Oxidation of arsenic bearing minerals seems to be the main cause of the
groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.  The
oxidation is directly related to the over-pumping of groundwater and diversion
of river water.  The over-pumping of groundwater and diversion of river water
started after 1975.  The above mentioned environmental problems began to appear
also after 1975 which are the result of over-pumping of groundwater and
diversion of river water.

The British Geological Survey(BGS), Bangladesh Department of Public Health and
Engineering(DPHE) and Mott MacDonald Ltd. conducted a groundwater arsenic
poisoning investigation in Bangladesh, but they failed to establish the source,
cause, and solution to the problem because they did not collect adequate and
reliable data.  They completely ignored the role of dams/barrages on the common
rivers of Bangladesh and India whereas over-pumping of groundwater and diversion
of river water are the main causes of the groundwater arsenic poisoning in
Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.

The BGS/DPHE/MML investigators presented river water discharge of three major
rivers of Bangladesh i.e., Ganges(Padma), Bramhaputra, and Meghna in their
Phase-1 investigative report.  They presented long term data prior to 1975, but
they did not present river water discharge data after 1975 which is the most
important data for the oxidation process.  Therefore, they do not have any clue
regarding how the diversion of river water and over-pumping of groundwater are
causing changes in the hydrological, hydrogeological and hydrochemical cycles of
the Bengal Basin.

[...]

[continued in Part 2.  An attached file was deleted -- this was a .bmp of a data
table showing average monthly discharge and sediment load of major rivers.  Some
of this data appears in the message body of Part 2 - Moderator]

Dear All,

A write-up on, “Fate Of Three Crore Rupee Arsenic Removal Plants In Murshidabad"
that may be of your interest [has been uploaded to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arsenic-source/files/ ].

Sincerely yours,

Dipankar Chakraborti
Director and Head
School of Environmental Studies
Jadavpur University
Kolkata - 700 032, India
Tel: 91 33 473 5233
Fax: 91 33 473 4266
Email: dcsoesju@...

Dear Dr. Gunnar Jacks:

Three main types of rice are grown in Bangladesh.  These are (a) Aush (b) Aman
and (c) Boro.  The Aush and Aman rice are cultivated in Baishakh(April-May). 
The Aush rice is harvested in  Srabon(July-August) where as the Aman rice is
harvested in Augrahyon(November-December).  The Aush and Aman are grown all over
Bangladesh.  The water level starts to rise in June and most of the cultivated
land is submerged in the wet season mainly from July to November.  In the low
lands the Aush and Amon rice are mainly grown in water and the low lands remains
under water for about 6 months each year.  If you go to Bangladesh now, you will
see how the low lands and wetlands look.  In the wet season, the dry lands
including the wetlands you mentioned in your post is inundated by water. The
people of Bangladesh and West Bengal of India have been growing Aush and Aman
rice for thousands of years.  Prior to 1975 in Bangladesh and prior to the
1960's in West Bengal of India, there was no significant lowering of water table
because there was no diversion of river water and a significant amount of
groundwater was not used for irrigation, and there was no groundwater arsenic
poisoning in the Bengal Basin.

After 1975, due to the over-pumping of groundwater and the diversion of river
water, a new oxidized zone is formed that lies below the ancient and naturally
created oxidized zone which was a reducing zone prior to 1975 and now appears to
be the pay zone of the groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh.  If arsenic
was released from the reducing zone before the water diversion by Farakka and
other dams/barrages and the over-pumping of groundwater, groundwater users
should have been poisoned by arsenic.

Dr. Jacks, the "recent wetland cultivation theory" you proposed does not support
the source and the mechanism for the mobilization of arsenic into the
groundwater arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and West Bengal of India.  Did you
find any arsenic rich ironhydroxide above the groundwater table?  What is the
age of these ironhydroxide? If you have any data that supports the "Recent
wetlands cultivation Theory", please share your data.  If your data support the
OXHYDROXIDE REDUCTION THEORY, I do not find any reason why we would not accept
your theory.

Yours Sincerely,

Meer Husain