The chemtrails chemicals in rhe air end up in the water. Rhe entire ecosystems is disrupted.
Four trees in my backyard were affected.
Some co.pounds contains. Barium and Aluminum symbols of God Baal.
They affect human brains creating alzheimer.
The water is collecting all these chemicals and the ecology of this beautifull planet is affected.
According ți William Thomkins not only humans are polluting the air the Draxo Reptilians are spraying us with 5 gases on regular intervals. He has picture of them when theybforgot to.clock their ship. Meaning to make it invisible or create a clowd around the ship.
Then human chain of command is controlled and the crazy one in control of money and power poison our sky and we pay for it.
This picture is above my house yesterday afternoon.
This highly structured water is referred to as fourth phase of water, not H2O but H3O2, and can be called living water. It's more viscous, dense, and alkaline than regular water; has a negative charge, and can hold energy, much like a battery, and deliver energy too.
What water is the purest to drink? Rainwater is unlike the rest as it comes from a natural source void of groundwater contamination. Rainwater is sourced from the clouds and never touches the ground. This makes this type of water the purest water available on the planet.
The spraying of the herbicide on hundreds of hectares of northern Ontario is sanctioned by the provincial government,
but it's paid for by forest companies looking to plant more trees to
cut down in the years ahead. Eacom Timber Corporation plans to spray 780
hectares in the north shore forest near Massey this year.
Governments say glyphosate is safe, but some say 'poison' is being sprayed on northern forests
Hundreds of hectares of Crown land in northern Ontario sprayed every summer
All this poison is going to affect the water in the rivers.
"I had bear hunters up here at the time and these helicopters flew
over top of them and were spraying on them," remembers the owner of East
Bull Lake Wilderness Resort north of Massey.
"I felt it was my
responsibility to find out exactly what it was they were spraying and
they said 'Oh, it's just Roundup. There's no problem with Roundup."
In the decade since Vautour has learned that many people have a problem with Roundup and its active herbicide glyphosate.
The
makers of Roundup have been sued successfully by Americans who claim it
gave them cancer and several U.S. states have banned the herbicide.
Nova Scotia and Quebec have also stopped spraying it from helicopters on clear cuts so newly planted trees can grow.
Vautour, now 75, has prostate cancer and doctors are worried it might be spreading to his thyroid.
He wonders if it's related to the spraying, but he doesn't know.
"Nobody can tell me that. But why are all these things happening?" Vautour says.
Glyphosateis a poison and is cancerigen.
Question
Who decided to poison the atmosphere the water and who is paying for this poison to be sprayed on the land of Ontario?
Who can decide that this poison should stop being sprayed?
This chemical enter into the rivers and lakes and oceans!!!
What kind of people are those that think this is ok?
When he first heard about the spraying all those years ago, one of
the first people Vautour told was his friend Raymond Owl, an elder from
Sagamok First Nation.
Both men have heard stories about trees and
blueberries suddenly dying in the bush and have noticed a disturbing
absence of animal life in areas that have been sprayed with glyphosate.
The 76-year-old Owl has been lobbying both governments through the Traditional Ecological Knowledge Elders group.
After
not getting anywhere with federal and provincial bureaucrats, Owl says
his group is planning to file a lawsuit against Canada for violating the
Robinson-Huron Treaty of 1850.
He
says the government did not consult First Nations living along the North
Shore of Lake Huron before it began spraying this chemical on their
forests.
"It's still our land. We never sold it. We just gave you a
right to live here. That's all you got. But you don't have authority
what you do to our land," says Owl.
"First Nations doesn't want any chemical at all. If it kills one little bug, one blade of grass, that's too much."
The
spraying of the herbicide on hundreds of hectares of northern
Ontario is sanctioned by the provincial government, but it's paid for by
forest companies looking to plant more trees to cut down in the years
ahead.
Eacom Timber Corporation plans to spray 780 hectares in the north shore forest near Massey this year.
Raymond
Owl of Sagamok First Nation is part of the Traditional Ecological
Knowledge Elders group that is fighting the aerial spraying of northern
Ontario forests. (Erik White/CBC )
But director of public affairs Christine Leduc points out that is less than 0.1 per cent of the total forest.
She
says in response to some of the concerns from the public, Eacom is
looking to move away from aerial herbicide spraying and clean up some
clear cuts using crews on the ground instead.
"Ultimately
the decision to use those methods lies with the province, but for our
part, where there's opportunities and reasonable alternatives we are
committed to reducing our use of aerial spraying," Leduc says.
So Cristine Leduc is one of the responsible people for poisoning the air land and water. The premier of Ontario is another one responsible for the crime against the environment and the peoples.
Statement from the Ministry:
The
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry did not make anyone
available for an interview, but did provide the following statement:
"Herbicide
use is very limited in Ontario and they are only used when absolutely
necessary – it usually amounts to less than 0.2 per cent of Ontario's
forested area in any given year.
Glyphosate
is used on Crown forests, only when necessary. Under the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act, people operating in the forest are required to
ensure management practices provide for healthy, diverse and productive
Crown forests and their associated ecological processes and biological
diversity. Conifer is renewed to ensure the long-term sustainability of
the forest, to provide economic benefits to Ontarians, and to provide
important wildlife habitat (including marten, moose, deer, and caribou).
Forest
managers control vegetation to meet forest stand objectives. They make
decisions on which control methods to use, including herbicides, based
on site conditions and the competing species to be controlled.
The
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry is also responsible for poisoning the air land and water. They should be fired not paid from tax dollars.
In April, 2017 Health
Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency completed a re-evaluation of
glyphosate, finding it does not present unacceptable risks to human
health or the environment when used as directed. The re-evaluation
reaffirmed current use of glyphosate in forestry including its safety
for people entering sprayed areas, such as hunters.
MNRF
relies on Health Canada's pesticide registration and the Ministry of
Environment, Conservation and Park's classification to ensure that
pesticides used in Ontario's forests are safe."
So another one responsible is Health
Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency. They all should be fired and jailed.
The poisoning of our lands soley for the profit of lumber companies must end.
WAKE UP ONTARIO.
From
about the middle of August - September forestry companies are spraying
chemical herbicides on harvested timber blocks to kill everything but
the conifers and replant “pure” farms …. This occurs about 3 years
after they cut has taken place and these areas now have the best food
available for moose, deer, (vegetation browse) bears (berries) and many
other forest animals… no big game animals located in this spray block -
not a surprise … east of Horwood Lake - Northern Ontario Canada Joel Theriault
All these chemicals affect the water!! And water is life.!!!!
Why?
Same situation is in New Brunswick and people are protesting.
20
Years ago, Quebec consulted their people and BANNED the use of Chemical
Herbicides in Forestry, due to Human and Environmental Health Concerns.
(It's also banned in Cape Breton Island & Vermont, and Saskatchewan
doesn't use Chemical Herbicides in Forestry either.)
To help ban the spraying in Ontario, contact your MLA, sign a petition & spread awareness. ONTARIO Petition - LINK http://chng.it/PWByCXLDCC
In 2017, the federal government reapproved the use of glyphosate until at least 2032.
Glyphosate is a chemical found in some weed killers used by farmers. It
is estimated that more than 80% of Americans are exposed to glyphosate.
In 2016, the World Health Organization announced it had determined glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.”
The lawns parks where the herbicide is used have no birds on them.see what is happening in your neighborhood. Your city people might poison your land and water and you are paying for it.!!
It is interesting to note, however, that Bayer, the company that owns
the Roundup brand, announced in 2021 that it would cease selling
Roundup in the residential lawn and garden market in 2023. It cited the
risks to farmworkers and consumers from exposure to this toxic pesticide as the primary reason for the decision.
This announcement came just two years after the company was ordered
to pay more than $80 million in damages to a man who claimed in a Roundup lawsuit that the product caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name “Roundup”)
was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of
glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately
100-fold.
All these chemicals end up in rivers and lakes. This should STOP!!!
With respect to glyphosate-based herbicides, we are certain of the following:
GBH Use, exposure, presence
1.
GBHs are currently the most heavily applied herbicides in the world.
Trends in the volume and intensity of GBH
uses have been rising sharply since the mid-1990s, in step with global
adoption of genetically engineered, glyphosate-tolerant crops [10, 52, 53].
Use of GBHs is likely to continue increasing if Roundup Ready
glyphosate-tolerant maize, soybeans, cotton, canola, alfalfa and sugar
beet are approved for planting in regions not now dominated by such
cultivars.
2.
GBHs contaminate drinking water via
rainwater, surface runoff and leaching into groundwater, thereby adding
drinking water, bathing, and washing water as possible routine exposure
pathways [48, 54, 55].
3.
The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil
is longer than previously recognized. In field studies, the half-life
of glyphosate in soil ranged between a few days to several months, or
even a year, depending on soil composition [56].
Studies have shown that soil sorption and degradation of glyphosate
exhibit great variation depending on soil physical, chemical, and
biological properties. The risk of long-term, incremental buildup of
glyphosate contamination in soil, surface water, and groundwater is
therefore driven by highly site-specific factors, and as a result, is
difficult to predict and costly to monitor.
4.
Residues of glyphosate and its principle
metabolite AMPA are present in nearly all soybeans harvested from fields
planted with Roundup Ready soybeans [13, 16].
The intensity of glyphosate use has trended upward on most GE Roundup
Ready crops. In addition, applications are now being made later in the
crop cycle on GE crops. In addition, wheat, barley and other grain, and
some vegetable crops are sprayed very late in the crop season to
accelerate crop death, drying, and harvest operations. For these
reasons, average residue levels on and in some harvested grains,
oilseeds, and certain other crops are substantially higher than they
were a decade ago and, as a result, human dietary exposures are rising.
5.
The emergence and spread of
glyphosate-resistant weeds requires farmers to spray additional
herbicides, including older herbicides posing documented environmental
and public health risks and/or newer, more costly herbicides to avoid
crop yield losses and slow the spread of these weeds [37].
This is particularly problematic in grain and row-crop fields planted
for several years with Roundup Ready GE crops. In the U.S., contending
with resistant weeds has already increased total herbicide use per acre
by approximately 70 % in soybeans, and 50 % in the case of cotton
compared to herbicide rates on these crops in the mid-1990s when GE
varieties were first introduced [10].
Section II
We estimate with confidence that:
1.
Glyphosate provokes oxidative damage in rat liver and kidneys by disrupting mitochondrial metabolism [57–59] at exposure levels currently considered safe and acceptable by regulatory agencies [4, 25, 26].
Therefore, the ADI governing exposures to GBHs is overestimated.
Adverse effects impacting other endpoints are less certain, but still
worrisome and indicative of the need for more in-depth research (see
following sections).
2.
Residues from GBHs may pose higher risks to the
kidneys and liver. Metabolic studies in a variety of laboratory and
farm animal species show that levels of glyphosate and AMPA in kidney
and liver tissues are 10- to 100-fold (or more) higher than the levels
found in fat, muscle (meat) and most other tissuesFootnote 3.
Increases in the frequency of serious, chronic kidney disease have been
observed among male agricultural workers in some regions in which there
is a combination of heavy GBH use and ‘hard’ water [60, 61]. These possible adverse effects of GBH exposure on kidney and liver warrant a focused, international research effort.
3.
There are profound gaps in estimates of
worldwide human GBH exposure. Glyphosate and AMPA are not monitored in
the human population in the United States, despite the 100-fold increase
in use of GBHs over recent decades. In circumstances where there is
substantial uncertainty in a pesticide’s dietary risk, the EPA is
presumptively required by the U.S. Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of
1996 to impose an added safety factor of up to 10-fold in the setting
of glyphosate’s cRfD. Such uncertainty can arise from gaps in the scope
and quality of a pesticide’s toxicology dataset, or uncertainty in
exposure assessments. Considering the uncertainties regarding both GBH
safety and exposure, the EPA should impose a 10-fold safety factor on
glyphosate, which would reduce the EPA chronic Population Adjusted Dose
(cPAD) to 0.175 mg/kg bw/day. [Note: the U.S. EPA adopted the new term
cPAD to designate a chronic Reference Dose for a pesticide that had been
lowered by the Agency as a result of the application of an added,
FQPA-mandated safety factor. Virtually all FQPA safety factors have
reduced chronic Reference Doses by 3-fold or 10-fold].
4.
Nevertheless, imposing a 10-fold decrease in
glyphosate’s chronic Reference Dose, as seemingly called for in current
U.S. law, should only be viewed as an interim step in the reassessment
of glyphosate toxicity and risk, and re-adjustment of glyphosate uses
and tolerances in food. Considerable work on glyphosate and GBH
toxicity, mechanisms of action, and exposure levels must be completed
before the U.S. EPA can credibly conclude that GBH uses and exposures
are consistent with the FQPA’s basic safety standard, namely that there
is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” from ongoing, chronic exposures
to GBHs across the American population.
Section III
Current models and data from the biological sciences predict that:
1.
Glyphosate and GBHs disrupt endocrine-signaling
systems in vitro, including multiple steroid hormones, which play vital
roles in the biology of vertebrates [21, 22, 24, 62]. Rat maternal exposure to a sublethal dose of a GBH resulted in male offspring reproductive development impairment [21].
As an endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC), GBH/glyphosate can alter the
functioning of hormonal systems and gene expression patterns at various
dosage levels. Such effects will sometimes occur at low, and likely
environmentally-relevant exposures. Contemporary endocrine science has
demonstrated that dose–response relationships will sometimes deviate
from a linear increase in the frequency and severity of impacts expected
as dose levels rise [19, 63].
2.
The timing, nature, and severity of endocrine
system impacts will vary depending on the levels and timing of GBH
exposures, the tissues exposed, the age and health status of exposed
organisms, and other biotic or abiotic stressors impacting the
developmental stage and/or physiology of the exposed organism. Exposures
can trigger a cascade of biological effects that may culminate many
years later in chronic degenerative diseases or other health problems.
Exposures leading to serious complications later in life might occur
over just a few days to a month in short-lived animals, and over a few
days to several months in humans.
3.
The study used by the EPA to establish the
current glyphosate cRfD used gavage as a system of delivery, as
recommended by OECD guidelines for prenatal developmental toxicity
studies, which in all likelihood underestimates both exposure and
toxicity [64].
This conclusion is derived from two considerations: (i) gavage bypasses
sublingual exposure, and thus overestimates the portion of the chemical
subjected to first pass metabolism in the liver, and (ii) gavage
stresses the experimental subjects inducing endocrine effects that can
lead to artefacts including, crucially, a reduction in the difference
between control and experimental groups.
4.
The incidence of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL) has nearly doubled in the U.S. between 1975 and 2006 [65].
GBHs are implicated in heightened risk of developing NHL among human
populations exposed to glyphosate occupationally, or by virtue of
residence in an area routinely treated with herbicides [66]. A causal link between GBH exposures and NHL may exist, but has not been rigorously studied in human populations.
5.
Uncertainty persists over the doses required to
cause most of the above endocrine-system-mediated effects. Some
published data indicate that doses well within the range of current
human exposure may be sufficient [22, 25],
whereas other studies demonstrating distinct, adverse impacts have
explored high doses and exposures that are unlikely to reflect any real
world levels of ingestion. Additional in vivo studies are needed at
environmentally relevant doses to distinguish the combination of factors
likely to give rise to endocrine-system-driven morbidity and mortality.
Nevertheless, the epidemiological data described above provides
evidence of heightened cancer risk in human populations at levels of
exposure actually experienced in human populations.
6.
Glyphosate is a chelating agent with potential to sequester essential micronutrient metals such as zinc, cobalt and manganese [67, 68].
This property of GBHs can alter the availability of these
micronutrients for crops, people, wildlife, pets, and livestock. These
micronutrient metals are enzymatic cofactors, so their loss has the
potential to contribute to a number of deleterious effects, especially
on kidney and liver function [69].
Section IV
Existing data suggest, but do not empirically confirm, a wide range of adverse outcomes:
1.
Multiple studies on GBHs have reported effects indicative of endocrine disruption [21–24].
Based on knowledge from studies of other endocrine disruptors, the
developing fetus, infants, and children are most at risk. Effects
following GBH exposure may not be immediately apparent, because some
adverse conditions caused by early-life exposure only manifest in later
stages of development and/or in adulthood. These include both acute
diseases and chronic health problems. In addition, proving links between
chronic disease and exposures to GBHs is made more difficult by the
fact that people are routinely exposed to complex mixtures of glyphosate
and other toxic chemicals.
2.
The action of glyphosate as an antibiotic may alter the gastrointestinal microbiome in vertebrates [33, 70–72], which could favor the proliferation of pathogenic microbes in humans, farm animals, pets and other exposed vertebrates.
3.
Increased incidence of severe birth defects in
Argentina and Paraguay in areas where GE Roundup Ready crops are widely
grown may be linked to the ability of GBHs to increase retinoic acid
activity during fetal development [23]Footnote 4.
Glyphosate-contaminated soybean feeds used in the pork industry have
also been associated with elevated rates of gastrointestinal-health
problems and birth defects in young pigs [32]. Related impacts have been observed in poultry [33].
4.
Some developmental studies in rats undertaken
at relatively high levels of exposure suggest possible GBH-induced
neurotoxicity through multiple mechanisms [73].
Replication of these studies using doses relevant to human exposures
should be a high priority. Further work on GBH-induced neurotoxicity
should be conducted to test whether glyphosate can act as a disruptor of
neurotransmitter function given its similarity in structure to glycine
and glutamateFootnote 5.
5.
GBHs may interfere with normal sexual
development and reproduction in vertebrates. Experiments with zebrafish
with dosing of GBH in the upper range of environmentally-relevant
contamination levels, show morphological damage to ovaries [74].
6.
A recent report demonstrates that
environmentally relevant concentrations of commercially available GBHs
alter the susceptibility of bacteria to six classes of antibiotics (for
example, either raise or lower the minimum concentration needed to
inhibit growth) [75]. Furthermore, GBHs can also induce multiple antibiotic-resistance phenotypes in potential human pathogens (E. coli and Salmonella enterica
serovar typhimurium). Such phenotypes could both undermine antibiotic
therapy and significantly increase the possibility of mutations
conferring more permanent resistance traits. Since GBHs and antibiotics
are widely used on farms, farm animals may be exposed to both, with a
concomitant decrease in antibiotic effectiveness and increase in the
diversity of newly resistant bacterial phenotypes that might find their
way into the human population. Risk assessors have not previously
considered the finding that herbicides might have sublethal adverse
effects on bacteria, but this should be considered in future risk
assessments.
Section V
Uncertainties in current assessments persist because:
1.
A steadily growing portion of global GBH use is
applied in conjunction with multiple other herbicides, insecticides,
and fungicides. Herbicide and other pesticide active ingredient safety
levels are calculated for each active ingredient separately, despite the
fact that tank mixes including two to five, or even more active
ingredients account for a significant portion of the volume of
pesticides applied. Regulators do not require further testing of such
mixtures, nor do they conduct any additional risk assessments designed
to quantify possible additive or synergistic impacts among all
herbicides applied, let alone the combination of all herbicides,
insecticides, fungicides, and other pesticides applied on any given
field.
2.
The full list of chemicals in most commercial
GBHs is protected as “confidential business information,” despite the
universally accepted relevance of such information to scientists hoping
to conduct an accurate risk assessment of these herbicide formulations.
The distinction in regulatory review and decision processes between
‘active’ and ‘inert’ ingredients has no toxicological justification,
given increasing evidence that several so-called ‘inert’ adjuvants are
toxic in their own right [42].
Moreover, in the case of GBHs, the adjuvants and surfactants, which
include ethoxylated tallowamines, alkylpolyglycosides or petroleum
distillates in most commonly used commercial formulations, alters both
the environmental fate and residue levels of glyphosate and AMPA in
harvested foodstuffs and animal feeds. They do so by enhancing the
adhesion of glyphosate to plant surfaces, as well as facilitating the
translocation of applied glyphosate from the surface of weed leaves into
sub-surface plant tissues, where it exerts its herbicidal function and
where rainfall can no longer dissipate the glyphosate.
3.
The vast majority of GBH-toxicology studies
used for regulatory assessments lack a sufficient range of dose levels
to adequately assess adverse impacts that might be initiated by low,
environmentally-relevant exposuresFootnote 6.
Most toxicology studies examine only a high dose between the LD50 (the
dose required to kill 50 % of treated animals) and the maximum tolerated
dose (a dose that has high toxicity but does not kill), and then
typically two lower doses (allowing for the identification of the Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Level [LOAEL] and the No Observed Adverse
Effect Level [NOAEL]). Environmentally relevant doses are rarely
examined [63].
A further complication arises specifically for endocrine disrupting
chemicals: there are theoretical and empirical findings concluding that
one cannot assume any no-impact exposure threshold for endocrine
processes that are already underway because of endogenous hormones [76].
4.
Residues of GBHs in plants are often present in
conjunction with: (a) residues of systemic seed treatments, especially
neonicotinoid insecticides (for example, clothianidin and thiamethoxam)
and their adjuvants (such as organosilicone surfactants), (b) residues
of systemic insecticides and fungicides applied during the season, and
(c) Bt endotoxins in the case of GE, insect-protected Bt
cultivars. Such mixtures and combinations are never tested, and thus it
is unknown how GBHs might interact with these other agents.
5.
Large-scale and sophisticated biomonitoring
studies of the levels of glyphosate, its metabolites, and other
components of GBH mixtures in people have not been conducted anywhere in
the world. Biomonitoring studies should include measurement of
glyphosate residues, metabolites, and adjuvants in blood and urine to
obtain meaningful insights into internal contamination levels and the
pharmacokinetics of GBHs within vertebratesFootnote 7.
6.
Adequate surveys of GBH contamination in food
products have not as yet been conducted on a large scale, even in the
U.S. The first and only in-depth USDA testing of glyphosate and AMPA
residues in food targeted soybeans, and occurred once in 2011 [13].
Of the three hundred samples tested, 90.3 % contained glyphosate at a
mean level of 1.9 ppm, while 95.7 % contained AMPA at 2.3 ppm. In
contrast, the next highest residue reported by USDA in soybeans was
malathion, present at 0.026 ppm in just 3.7 % of samples. Thus, the mean
levels of glyphosate and AMPA in soybeans were 73-fold and 83-fold
higher than malathion, respectively. Residues in animal products, sugar
beet, pre-harvest treated wheat, corn silage, and alfalfa hay and
sprouts are unknown, but likely much higher, given the series of recent
requests by Monsanto to increase tolerance levels in a range of foods
and animal feeds [12].
7.
There is no thorough, up-to-date government
survey of glyphosate and AMPA residues in U.S. grown Roundup Ready GE
soybeans, nor manufactured foods that contain soy-based ingredients.
However, changes in the rate of GBH applications on many other crops,
and/or the timing of applications, have clearly increased residue levels
in some circumstances. In particular, GBH uses late in the growing
season as a pre-harvest desiccant have become more common. Such
applications speed up the drying of crops in the field, so that harvest
operations can be completed before bad weather sets in. Such harvest-aid
uses are popular, especially in wet years, on wheat, canola, and other
grain farms in some humid, temperate climates, such as in the UK and
northern-tier states in the US. While pre-harvest uses have only
modestly increased the total volume of GBHs applied, they have
significantly increased the frequency and levels of residues in
harvested grains, and have required GBH registrants to seek significant
increases in tolerance levels. These residues are also contributing to
dietary exposures via a number of grain-based products, as clearly
evident in data from the U.K. Food Standard Agency’s residue testing
program [14].
8.
Glyphosate residues are generally uncontrolled
for in the standard rations fed to animals in laboratory studies. GBH
residues can often be found in common laboratory animal chows used in
feeding studies, thus potentially confounding the results of GBH
toxicity tests [77].
Out of 262 pesticide residues analyzed in 13 commonly used rodent
laboratory diets, glyphosate was the most frequently found pesticide,
with concentrations reaching 370 ppb [78]. Therefore, GBH residues should be accounted for in animal chows used in controls for GBH studies.
9.
The limited data currently available on
glyphosate pharmacokinetics in vertebrates are insufficient to predict
transport and fate of glyphosate in different mammalian tissues, organs
and fluids in the body, and to determine whether or where
bioaccumulation occurs, although animal metabolism studies point
strongly to the kidney and the liver.
Iran 3000 years ago a Marvelous underground water system was constructed in Iran, known as qanat .
A qanat is an underground Aqueduct that functions as a Sustainable watermanagement system. The construction of a qanat involves a series of carefully planned and engineered underground tunnels that tap into underground watersource, typically originating from mountains or hills. The tunnels slope gently downward, following the natural gradient of the terrain. The process of creating a qanat begins with the identification of a suitable water source, such as a groundwater reservoir. Skilled workers, often referred to as muqannīs, manually excavate a vertical shaft from the surface down to the level of the water source. This shaft serves as the access point to the qanat system. Once the initial shaft is established, workers then dig horizontally along the water table to create a tunnel. The tunnel is meticulously excavated, maintaining a gentle downward slope to facilitate the flow of water. The excavated soil is removed through the vertical shaft, ensuring minimal disturbance to the surface. To provide oxygen to the workers during the excavation process, vertical holes, known as air shafts or kārīz, are periodically created along the tunnel. These air shafts allow fresh air to reach the diggers, ensuring a safe working environment underground. The air shafts also serve as access points for maintenance and repair of the qanat system. The qanat system is designed to minimize water loss through evaporation or seepage. The tunnel is typically lined with materials like stone or clay to prevent water leakage, ensuring that a significant portion of the water reaches its intended destination. This efficiency in water transport enabled the growth of agriculture and settlement in previously inhospitable areas. Qanats are characterized by their sustainable and environmentally friendly nature. By relying on gravity to transport water, they require no external energy sources for operation. Moreover, the underground nature of the qanat system helps conserve water by reducing evaporation, preventing contamination, and protecting the water supply from external factors like temperature fluctuations and pollution. The qanat system played a vital role in the development of civilizations in arid regions. It provided a reliable and consistent water supply that sustained agricultural activities, facilitated the growth of settlements, and supported the livelihoods of communities. Even today, qanats continue to be utilized in some parts of the world, serving as a testament to the ingenuity and foresight of ancient engineers. The construction and maintenance of qanats required considerable knowledge, skill, and collaboration. The development of this remarkable underground water management system stands as a testament to the resourcefulness and innovation of ancient societies, as well as their deep understanding of the importance of water in sustaining life in challenging environments.
Indigenous people have been standing up to protect water for decades —
because to them, is more than just hydration. Water is alive and holds a
spirit. Water is sacred.
It's the lifeblood that flows through
lakes, rivers and oceans, fosters important ecosystems and has been used
for transportation since time immemorial.
In 2003, Anishnaabe Elder Josephine Mandamin took her first
ceremonial water walk around Lake Superior. She wanted to share a
message: the water is sick and people need to speak, love and fight for
it.
Shirley Williams, an Anishinaabe elder from Wikwemikong
Unceded Territory on Manitoulin Island, along with her niece Elizabeth
Osawamick, have since followed in Mandamin's footsteps. They've been
organizing annual water walks around the Kawartha region of Ontario
since 2010.
"Water is the first thing that the Creator made, and it's the water where we were born," said Williams.
"We pray for that water because water is a living thing. It's not a commodity. We look at it as a spiritual element."
Role of forests in water healthThe forest cover
slows down erosion and delays the release of water into streams,
helping stabilize the quality and quantity of water in the area. Forests recharge and maintain the quality of groundwater.
How much water does a forest get?
During the growing period the amount of water required for forest vegetation can be assumed with an average of 3 mm per day.
Do forests absorb a lot of water?
Forests
filter and regulate the flow of water, in large part due to their leafy
canopy that intercepts rainfall, slowing its fall to the ground and the
forest floor, which acts like an enormous sponge, typically absorbing up to 18 inches of precipitation (depending on soil composition) before gradually releasing it.
As our landscape changes, it begins to have an impact on stream
health. What we do on or to the land affects both the quantity (volume)
and quality (pollutant levels) of the water in our streams and lakes.
The land area through which any water moves, or drains, to reach a
stream is called a watershed.
As we begin to remove forest canopy and replace it with roads,
parking lots, driveways, homes, patios, pools (impervious surfaces) and
even grass, we immediately have impact on watersheds and receiving
streams (or lakes). With the increased amount of impervious surfaces,
water runs off the land, traveling on the surface towards the streams.
As this 'storm water runoff' travels to the streams it collects
pollutants and increases speed. The changes to the landscape, not only
increase the volume of water that goes to the stream, it also shortens
the amount of time it takes the water to get to the stream. These
increased or peak flows cause water to move quickly to the streams. This
leads to flooding, stream bank erosion, widening of streams, sediment
deposited in streams, a loss of fish habitat, and decline in water
quality. In Pennsylvania there are over 12,200 miles of polluted streams
and over 3,000 miles of streams that are impaired by storm water
runoff.
So how do we protect water quality and our streams as watersheds change?
Trees and forests play an incredible role in reducing storm water in
several ways and removing or filtering pollutants that would otherwise
wind up in our waterways.
One Forest Service Researcher has stated that planting large canopy
trees over impervious surfaces, such as a parking lot or street has much
greater impact on reducing storm water (up to 8 times greater) because
it works to reduce peak flows in urban settings.
Pollutant Removal and Phytoremediation
Plants, especially woody plants, are very good at removing nutrients
(nitrates and phosphates) and contaminates (such as metals, pesticides,
solvents, oils and hydrocarbons) from soil and water. These pollutants
are either used for growth (nutrients) or are stored in wood. In one
study, a single sugar maple growing roadside removed 60mg of cadmium,
140mg of chromium, 820mg of nickel, and 5200mg of lead in a single
growing season (Coder, 1996). Studies in Maryland showed reductions of
up to 88% of nitrate and 76% of phosphorus after agricultural runoff
passed through a forest buffer.
In comparison, studies of residential lawns have shown overuse of
chemical fertilizers (over 100 million tons applied to lawns annually)
and synthetic pesticides (80 million pounds applied to lawns annually -
10 times the rate per acre used by farmers - Yale graduate study).
Excess nutrients from lawns and agricultural fields is one of the
largest sources of non-point pollutants that is impacting water quality
in our streams, rivers, lakes and the Chesapeake Bay.
In older existing communities, increasing tree canopy cover along
streets, in yards and in parking lots can have a positive impact on our
watersheds. Planting large canopy trees (where growing space permits)
provide the most benefit - 8 times that of small maturing trees,
For Native American,
then, as for most indigenous spirituality, water retains an honored and
indispensable place, an actual force as well as symbolic image of life and death, creation and destruction, nourishment and deprivation: water exists as an autonomous and primeval element to be encountered with humility.
First Nations are continuously striving to fulfill their
responsibilities to care for the waters. The “Water Declaration of the
Anshinabek, Mushkegowuk and Onkwehonwe” drafted by the Chiefs of Ontario
in 2008 and adopted by the Chiefs in Assembly emphasizes the caretaking
role of Indigenous peoples with regard to water and recognizes the
special responsibility of Indigenous women to talk and care for water.
This responsibility finds an illustration in the “Mother Earth Water
Walk” movement or in the activism of groups such as Akii Kwe. The
traditional and spiritual knowledge driving those groups is slowly being
integrated in Indigenous decision-making processes, as shown through
the foundation of the Anishinabek Women’s Water Commission in 2008. It
is hoped that, through its work, the Commission will influence
government agencies to go beyond the “techno-fix” and to meaningfully
include Anishinabek insights directed at finding long-term solutions for
the current water crisis and the protection of the Great Lakes and
other waters.
While Indigenous worldviews regarding water are far from homogenous,
some traditional beliefs and attitudes towards water are widely shared
across Nations. As part of a submission to the 2000 Walkerton Inquiry,
the Chiefs of Ontario have collectively shared the views that water is a
living being with its own spirit. Water is life and as such is sacred
and respected as a relative. Water is part of a greater, interconnected
whole; therefore, a focus on just drinking water is misguided. One must
consider all that to which water is connected. In keeping with this
traditional perspective, water is not about “use” but rather about
proper relationships. Because water is recognized as a living spiritual
force, one’s relationship with water should be based on respect and an
ethics of thanksgiving and should fulfill specific responsibilities.
Proper relationships to water ensure that water is, in turn, able to
fulfill its responsibilities. Those views entail that planning for water
governance must take a long-term approach where knowledge about water
is shared, with respect of the special role of women to speak for the
water and with an emphasis on using the original Indigenous names of the
waters.
