Dear Editor,
It has been reported in the local press (Lead testing of toys still to be done. Monday, October 8th 2007, SN) that the testing for Lead (Pb) in Toys is to be out-sourced probably at some Caribbean Institute or Laboratory, since the facilities do not exist here in Guyana! If a Caribbean laboratory can do the analyses, then it is reasonable for Guyanese to ask why these analyses cannot be done in Guyana by local personnel. An examination of the Guyanese situation is necessary to answer these questions
Anyone familiar with basic analytical chemistry knows that this procedure is not difficult. The quantification of Lead in trace amounts is relatively easily and routinely done using an Atomic Absorption (AA) spectrophotometer. (More sophisticated methods do exist.) This testing just requires the appropriate lamp (i.e. a ‘lead’ lamp) to be used in these analyses (and with of course the appropriate standards for calibration). Atomic Absorption spectrometer is the same instrument used to determine levels of Mercury (Hg) in fish, water, and soils, etc.
The Guyanese Public has been repeatedly told by Guyana Government officials (Ministers included) that the levels of Mercury in the drinking water and exported fish (e.g. in or near communities where spills had occurred during mining) are being monitored closely. However, these reports (to my knowledge) have not been made public for independent scrutiny.
Any concerned person would wonder where and by whom these tests are being done. One would reasonably assume that these analyses are being done at the IAST on UG’s campus where an intermittent functioning Atomic Absorption (AA) Spectrophotometer instrument resides. However, it is known that the campus is subject to numerous power fluctuations causing spikes in standards and samples – under such conditions, recalibration of instrumentation has to be repeated in order to get a high degree of accuracy and to attain the upper limits of detection. The results obtained under such conditions may well be misleading and unreliable.
These results (for Mercury) have important consequences on the health of the people and for the confirmation of the quality of fish exports, therefore accuracy in quantification, reproducibility, and the detection limits of these analyses are very important. For example: The Health or Agriculture Minister and food export officials (local and foreign) rely on accurate quantification data in order to make the appropriate decisions – such as whether the water is contaminated and not suitable for drinking or vice versa, or whether the fish is suitable for export since it does not have Mercury contamination. (Overseas markets can easily evaporate if the independent overseas quality control analyses find that the local analyses are flawed or suspect.)
The Mining Companies (in Guyana) know about the local deficiencies (such as the inability to timely collect appropriate samples for testing, poorly functioning and or non-existent instrumentation, and inadequately trained personnel) and therefore the local officials cannot effectively monitor their activities. This means that the local authorities have no strong and reliable scientific data on which to enforce the laws in case of any environmental violations. Probably, in most cases Amerindian (or interior communities) food and water supplies are contaminated when these are adjacent to mining activities. The accumulative effects of these heavy metals, Mercury in particular, especially in the children of these communities have not been raised. (These metals are known to affect early mental development.) So far only the massive spills or contaminations are apparently brought to the public’s attention.
Most analyses of water samples should include tests for the quantification of elements such as Mercury (Hg), Lead (Pb), Cadmium (Cd), Iron (Fe), etc, to determine the level of contaminants in the water of the mining communities and their nearby communities.
The question arises about the quality, capacity, and ability of the Atomic Absorption (AA) spectrophotometers available for producing accurate results in Guyana. Is there the necessary instrumentation to analyze for Mercury with results that can withstand international scrutiny? If yes, why is there no attempt to get the requisite lamps to perform the tests for Lead?
The academic and professional credentials of the analytical chemists would also come under scrutiny – the lives of our children and people, and important foreign markets are at stake. Therefore we must have ably qualified and highly professional people (i.e. analytical chemists and instrumentation technicians) doing the analyses.
During the 1970’s, the Govt Analysis Dept had an excellent well-equipped Laboratory headed by the most respected Guyanese analytical chemist, Dr Rex Woo-Ming. His work would be held up in any court of law. Does the IAST or any other Govt. Analysis Dept(s) have chemist(s) with such impeccable reputation that their work could be held up in any court (Local and international) of law?
As mentioned before, one assumes that these analyses for Mercury are being done at the IAST, which is headed by Dr. Suresh Narine. Would the IAST’s director, Dr. Narine, kindly report to the public about the capability to do accurate Mercury-testing, and why accurate Lead-testing cannot be done at IAST in Guyana?
Further, it is reasonable to assume that since Dr. Suresh Narine has never complained about the lack of instrumentation at ISAT and UG he has all the necessary facilities to do both Mercury- and Lead-testing. This really begs the question why out-source the Lead-testing to a Caribbean laboratory when Dr Narine’s IAST is fully equipped to do Lead-testing in Guyana. Who now heads the Analytical Chemistry division at IAST under the supervision of Dr .S. Narine, and would the instrumentation and personnel withstand international scrutiny in a legal dispute before any Court? How can Guyana also enter the profitable international Organic Products (dairy, meat, fish, and vegetables, etc) market without excellent analytical laboratories (e.g. Chemistry and Microbiology)?
If even accurate Lead- and Mercury-testing cannot be highly professionally done in Guyana, then how and where were the quantitative levels of the sprayed chemicals (herbicides: 2 4-D Amine and Igran) in sugar workers determined in the recent exposures at Skeldon Sugar Estates? These latter tests require the use of more sophisticated instrumentation and highly trained personnel. Where and who did the analytical tests and quantification analyses for these herbicides in the samples taken from the sugar workers? On what basis were the exposed sugar workers told that their exposures are negligible and that they are fine by Medical, Health and Safety, and Industry officials? The workers deserve some honest answers; the GAWU representatives should be asking these questions.
Here again we see blatant deficiencies in the scientific training and the absence of proper scientific facilities are having costly and predictable harsh consequences for Guyana. The scientific illiteracy, ignorance, and neglect shown by the Govt. and industry officials are not excusable but are downright dangerous to life and the quality of life of the trusting citizens. Guyana cannot economically afford to neglect the training of its scientists and the proper planning and funding of its science and technological facilities.
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry (formerly of UG’s Faculty of Science)
Editor’s note
We sent a copy of this letter to the Institute of Applied Science and Technology (IAST) for their comments and received the following response from Ms Lana Lawrence BSc, the Head of the Analytical Division:
“It is unfortunate that Dr. Beharry, from his comfort in Canada, sees fit to attack the IAST about lack of trained staff. Surely, as a trained scientist, Dr. Beharry is part of the brain drain that affects our science and technology sector. Fu
rthermore, I am too busy with my work at the IAST to spend time responding to someone who criticizes from far away, does not pay Guyanese taxes, but yet somehow thinks he can speak on behalf of Guyanese taxpayers. I will do so this once, but in the future, Dr. Beharry can pick up the telephone and call us, just like all the other normal, native Guyanese who choose to live here and work here and contribute to our future.
IAST does have an Atomic Absorption Spectrometer, and we do have a lead lamp, required for testing for lead contamination. We do also have a Mercury lamp, and indeed, have just finished an exhaustive study funded by the WWF, on mercury incidence in the Interior. Perhaps if Dr. Beharry was at home rather than taking pot shots at our Institute, he would have been aware of this study. Some time ago, I was contacted by the Guyana National Bureau of Standards about IAST’s ability to test for lead in toys. I explained that we can do lead testing, but we have never investigated the digestion procedures which are accepted worldwide as a standard for toys. Of course, our laboratory is willing to investigate and adopt these standards, but we were never contacted again.
As far as my qualifications go, Dr. Beharry would do well to attend a class on etiquette – it is not the norm for so-called academics to enquire in the manner that he has about someone’s credentials. However, for his information, I hold a BSc. Degree from the University of Guyana, and I have six (6) years of experience working in the laboratory at the IAST, one (1) year’s experience working with the Food and Drug Department in their laboratory, and the greater part of one (1) year working at the Demerara Distillers Limited Central Quality Control Laboratory. I certainly do not consider myself a world expert like the authority Dr. Beharry refers to, but I do my best, and I think Dr. Beharry would do well to treat my efforts with respect. It is now the IAST’s declared policy to ignore the nonsense being propagated by Dr. Beharry and his cohorts. They do not deserve my time and those of the Guyanese taxpayers. And, they are rude and obnoxious.”
