“Water is another name for life”—we have heard this saying so many times that perhaps we do not always appreciate its deeper meaning.
Yet when that very water, instead of remaining an indispensable component of life, gradually begins to pose a potential health risk, the matter can no longer be confined to mere criticism; it becomes a public health issue.
We have heard the Water and Sewerage Authority’s (WASA) promise of supplying “100 percent safe water” many times. Yet even after years of complaints, research, and debate, we still have not found an answer to the question of how far that promise reflects reality.
The latest report that harmful chemicals known as trihalomethanes, or THMs, have been detected in Chattogram WASA water has once again brought that old question to the forefront.
Researchers tested 120 water samples from Chattogram WASA and detected four types of THMs. In some samples, the levels were even higher during the warmer months.
The researchers also calculated the potential cancer risk associated with drinking water containing the same level of THMs over a prolonged period. Their calculations indicate that approximately 426 additional cases of cancer could potentially occur per one million people.
This does not, of course, mean that these people will definitely develop cancer. Rather, it is simply an estimate of the potential risk associated with long-term exposure to a particular concentration of the chemical.
The research shows that THMs are not directly added to water. They can form as by-products when chlorine, which is used to destroy harmful microorganisms, reacts with naturally occurring organic matter in the water.
Therefore, the answer is not to stop using chlorine; rather, there is a greater need for integrated monitoring of the water source, the amount of organic matter, the chlorine concentration, and the THMs produced as a result. This is where the major question arises.
Although WASA has raised objections to the methodology of the study, the agency has acknowledged that its laboratories do not have the specialized equipment required to test for THMs or chloroform.
In other words, WASA does not even have the capacity to regularly test for the very chemicals that are the subject of so much discussion!
What do we see in the developed world? In those countries, water safety is not limited to the treatment plant; it is monitored all the way to the consumer’s tap. They have established specific maximum limits for total trihalomethanes and control risks through regular monitoring.
Many countries regard consumers’ taps as important testing points and follow comprehensive chemical and microbiological standards. When new risks emerge, their regulatory systems also have mechanisms for reviewing and updating those standards.
Our reality, by contrast, seems to be the exact opposite. Sometimes there are complaints about foul smells, sometimes microorganisms, and sometimes chemical contamination—there seems to be no end to the complaints about the quality of WASA water.
At one point, there was even controversy over the claim that WASA supplied “100 percent potable water.” Later, in the face of protests and human chains, WASA authorities were forced to take the position that “WASA water is not directly drinkable.”
Sadly, however, even after that, WASA water has failed to become either “free of microorganisms” or “free of controversy.” On the contrary, very recently, persistent harmful chemicals such as PFAS have also been detected in WASA water.
The problem, therefore, is not with any single chemical; rather, the fundamental problem lies in the overall system for ensuring the safety of the water itself.
It is therefore natural to ask: will people have to learn what is in their water every time a new research study is published, or will the responsible institution itself know in advance and take appropriate action accordingly?
This game of cat and mouse between WASA and consumers needs to end. Water is a basic human necessity; it is not an act of charity or a favor. Therefore, it is not enough for WASA simply to claim that it supplies “safe water.”
It must also place due emphasis on the scientific testing necessary to ensure that safety. Regular testing from the water source all the way to consumers’ taps, establishing national standards for harmful chemicals, developing modern laboratories, and ensuring independent monitoring—all of these require serious attention.
The public wants more than promises; it wants genuinely safe water. When will WASA understand this?