8 ms·

Plants, heavy metals, and the lingering scars of World War I

137 points by bcaulfield 5y ago

fractallyte 5y ago
The damage caused by war (and industrial exploitation) is horrific. Yet there is precious little literature about the after-effects. For instance, here are articles about two major WW1 battles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood The battles are described in detail, but the devastation caused to woodland itself - a complex system of soil, vegetation, fauna - is not even an afterthought. While it's charming that the color of flowers is affected by soil contaminants, the vegetation layer is just the base of the trophic levels that constitute an ecosystem. All the other life in the woodland depends on the soil and vegetation. Contamination works its way through the entire ecosystem - definitely not charming. I've been downvoted many times for my opinions, but the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war. I would go further: this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict.
- CapitalistCartr 5y ago
  Not having war is more likely than ecological qualms during one.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war Don’t we have for example Protocol I of the Geneva Convention and also the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.
  - wombatmobile 5y ago
    The limitation of the Geneva Convention, and "International Law", is that there is nobody to enforce it, and there never will be. Such is the nature of laws, which are merely the ideas of some people about how other people should conduct themselves. For better or worse, who governs the seas is the outcome of wars. -- Political Science 101
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Right... so how would yet another Geneva Convention fix that?
      - wombatmobile 5y ago
        Nothing will protect natural habitats in times of war, since war is the suspension of the compact of civilisation. The most you could hope for would be that the victors of your next war are environmentalists who are happy to spend whatever it takes to clean up the mess. This might be an argument in favour of arming Greenpeace.
- watwut 5y ago
  > this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict. It should be unthinkable to target civilians, destroy houses and people, rape and torture. And here we are, in modern wars. It would be nice to make it unthinkable to have large organizations of soldiers all about killing, but here we are.
  - b0rsuk 5y ago
    Bret Devereaux is of the opinion that chemical weapons are not in use anymore simply because they're ineffective next to simple explosives. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... Maybe the simplest way to save the environment is to invent more deadly, cost effective weapons that don't harm the land as a side effect?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > chemical weapons are not in use anymore That’s got to be the most caveated statement in a blog post ever. For anyone reading casually, I really hope you’re aware Russia deployed a chemical weapon against the UK in anger as recently as 2018.
      - b0rsuk 5y ago
        Chemical weapons are used for assassination, but not for large scale warfare. More like terror weapons on civilians (Syria?) and guerilla fighters with limited resources and few alliances.
    - temp0826 5y ago
      Someone will still decide to salt the earth with depleted uranium out of spite (see iraq) even if an effective alternative exists
      - pfdietz 5y ago
- hulitu 5y ago
  > The damage caused by war (and industrial exploitation) is horrific. Yet there is precious little literature about the after-effects. Because the rullers want to be able to justify war everytime they need it. Look in history books accessible to the masses. War is heroic, a fight between good and evil. No indescriminate killing, no destruction, no pollution. Only those who lost were the bad guys and those who win are good ( there are exceptions, see Afganistan and Vietnam for examples). > For instance, here are articles about two major WW1 battles: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood > The battles are described in detail, but the devastation caused to woodland itself - a complex system of soil, vegetation, fauna - is not even an afterthought. There is also the idea that the effect of the war are punctual in time. In reality war are fought many years after the war officially ends (see bomb findings in europe or china vs taiwan in asia). > While it's charming that the color of flowers is affected by soil contaminants, the vegetation layer is just the base of the trophic levels that constitute an ecosystem. > All the other life in the woodland depends on the soil and vegetation. Contamination works its way through the entire ecosystem - definitely not charming. Yes, but nobody knows about it. > I've been downvoted many times for my opinions, but the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war. I would go further: this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict. Geneva convention does not help. See guantanamo for examples.
  - Godel_unicode 5y ago
    > Geneva convention does not help That's not true, the example of gitmo is an issue of the way that the treaty is worded not covering some situations. There are tons of horrifying things outlawed by the Geneva convention which have not happened since. See for instance the lack of massive battlefield use of chemical weapons in world war 2. The Ottawa treaty has had a similar effect on the use of landmines since. We've made a lot of progress, don't despair because it's not perfect yet.
hyperman1 5y ago
I wonder if it is possible to remove the poisoned top soil, heat it up and melt the metal, and use fractional destillation to remove it. What's leftover is probably heavily damaged by the heath, but maybe nature can re use it as a basis for new and healthy top soil.
- peteradio 5y ago
  At those heats the soil would burn away.
- bequanna 5y ago
  If you heated the soil to that point, I think you would end up with sterilized soil (or even just ash) that wouldn’t be very good for growing much.
- jsilence 5y ago
  Very very very expensive.
lb1lf 5y ago
-After WW2, the victorious allies dumped loads - as in, hundreds of thousands of tons - of surplus German ammunition in Norwegian waters, mostly simply by loading up old freighters with the ammo, steaming into deep waters and sinking them there. The result? We now find traces of toxins in fish caught off the dumping grounds (Mostly in the Skagerrak between Denmark and Norway, but also in the fjord right outside my office on the northwestern coast.) While dilution is a wonderful thing, I am a bit peeved that my nautical maps still show areas which are off-limits to fishing, be it recreational or professional, due to a metric shitload of mustard gas and tabun being dumped there, with a healthy sprinkling of conventional high-explosives on top just to make sure we'd never be able to clean it up properly. Sigh.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  There is also mustard gas dumped in the north sea near knokke, in rusting vats. Near to one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. Don't worry, citizen, it's not leaking much yet, go on holiday at the coast. https://www.gremberghe.nl/2013/07/het-mosterdgas-voor-onze-kust/ https://www.gremberghe.nl/2013/07/het-mosterdgas-voor-onze-k...
  - hulitu 5y ago
    Thank god the new bombs are envirinmental friendly. I wonder why no one talks about them (state secrets ?). /s
    - lb1lf 5y ago
      -Well, there is such a thing as bio-degradable land mines in the works. [0] (At least the idea was discussed years ago - whether it is implemented in current land mines, I've no idea.) While mines are still an abomination, ensuring they are laid down with an expiry date is still progress. Of sorts. I am in the rather awkward position of hoping for development in the anti-personnel mine business - I've no illusions such an effective weapon will ever be obsolete, so the best we can hope for (sigh) is that they will at least not cause collateral casualties for decades after the conflict which caused them to be deployed in the first place. [0] http://www.metts.com.au/landminesdoc.html http://www.metts.com.au/landminesdoc.html
maeln 5y ago
Just last week, someone found a unexploded grenade from WWI there : https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/p09il7/grenade_d%C3%A9couverte_au_d%C3%A9tour_dun_sentier/ https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/p09il7/grenade_d%C3... It just goes to show the scale of the war when even after 100 years it is still common to find unexploded ammunitions.
- jabl 5y ago
  Farmers in France and Belgium plow up 900 tonnes of unexploded WWI munitions every year. In the more dangerous 'zone rouge', no human activity except professional cleanup crews are allowed. It is estimated that at the current rate of progress the cleanup will be done in 300-700 years. https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zone-of-france-a-forbidden-no-mans-land-poisoned-by-war/ https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zon...
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Not to forget the abandoned mines in Belgium from the Messines campaign. Up to 20 tons of unexploded explosive per mine happily rotting under Belgium farms since 1917. And all the bombs still found in Germany. And the mines in the Baltic. And in former Yugoslavia. And all the mines from the various wars in Africa. And the depleted uranium ammo from the Gulf War. And the stuff, mines and agent orange for example, left in East Asia. Quite a long list of stuff to clean up.
b0rsuk 5y ago
Tolkien fought in the trenches of WW1 and it left a mark on him. Mordor and the way orcs treat land are especially influenced by his experience. People started to call this type of landscape "moonscape". https://acoup.blog/2019/10/18/collections-the-battlefield-after-the-battle/ https://acoup.blog/2019/10/18/collections-the-battlefield-af...
rubenbe 5y ago
In Ypres, Belgium there is still a measurable increase of copper in the soil. This was investigated by a Belgian university in 2008 [0]. More anecdotal evidence is that you'll often see old ammunition next to freshly plowed fields. [0] https://www.ugent.be/bw/environment/en/research/orbit/ww1/ovam_zware_metalen_ieper_wo1-pdf https://www.ugent.be/bw/environment/en/research/orbit/ww1/ov...
juanani 5y ago
Cmon warmongers, a little more and you're there. Green bombs! tax the f out of the people profitting from selling munitions? Something along those lines? That would tank our economy, sad sad sad
whoaisme 5y ago
I think I've run into more cover on ww1 pollution than I have on the massive amounts of cancer we've dumped in iraq or Vietnam. I guess it's easier to smugly comment about how our ancestors had so little foresight instead of having to eat the fact that absolutely nothing has changed and we do the same thing even with the benefit of hindsight. I mean the highest rated comment is about trace toxins in Norway jesus.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
holoduke 5y ago
Every year I am going on a tour through northern France and Italy to map old trenches and battlezones. We have a strict policy towards ammo. Last year we found tons of shells, helmets, hundreds of live bullets and grenades. Some say it will take another 900 years before most is gone.
- abbeyj 5y ago
  Sounds like Visual Player 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTDPmEywHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTDPmEywHE Edit: sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998754
  - holoduke 5y ago
    Thats the one :) awesome. Amazing that you found it. Thanks
rubenbe 5y ago
There is an "Iron Harvest" by Belgian and French farmers each year after plowing their fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest
mdturnerphys 5y ago
Previous discussion on similar article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16936769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16936769
sgt101 5y ago
I tell you what, the next proper war will leave scars for a lot longer than 100 years.
- ljm 5y ago
  Scars imply healing; you can only look to the world after the industrial revolution to see how heavily wounded the planet has become. The world can recover from a dozen Chernobyls and Fukushimas, but not so easily from a species that kills its defenses and continues to fight against it.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DoreenMichele 5y ago
The arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh mentioned in the piece is a real and serious problem, but it's also the side effect of meaningful progress. Some, but not all, of the wells built to stop a quarter of a million annual deaths from disease caused by collecting surface waters is the source of the arsenic poisoning.
- Gibbon1 5y ago
  What I understand the screw up there was not testing each well before putting it into potable water service. It's not a new thing. My grandfather had a gig during the 1930's testing wells and springs for the USDA. My grandmother said a lot of wells and springs people were drinking from were contaminated with heavy metals and bacteria.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    Years ago, I did a college paper on the Bangladesh arsenic poisoning. Short wells and deep wells are fine. It's medium depth wells that are the problem because they are all drawing water from a particular rock formation that contains arsenic. No one knew that beforehand. Relief organizations went in to put a stop to a serious crisis. They succeeded. Then reports of arsenic poisoning began emerging.

137 points by bcaulfield 5y ago

The damage caused by war (and industrial exploitation) is horrific. Yet there is precious little literature about the after-effects. For instance, here are articles about two major WW1 battles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood The battles are described in detail, but the devastation caused to woodland itself - a complex system of soil, vegetation, fauna - is not even an afterthought. While it's charming that the color of flowers is affected by soil contaminants, the vegetation layer is just the base of the trophic levels that constitute an ecosystem. All the other life in the woodland depends on the soil and vegetation. Contamination works its way through the entire ecosystem - definitely not charming. I've been downvoted many times for my opinions, but the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war. I would go further: this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict.

CapitalistCartr 5y ago
Not having war is more likely than ecological qualms during one.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war Don’t we have for example Protocol I of the Geneva Convention and also the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.
- wombatmobile 5y ago
  The limitation of the Geneva Convention, and "International Law", is that there is nobody to enforce it, and there never will be. Such is the nature of laws, which are merely the ideas of some people about how other people should conduct themselves. For better or worse, who governs the seas is the outcome of wars. -- Political Science 101
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Right... so how would yet another Geneva Convention fix that?
    - wombatmobile 5y ago
      Nothing will protect natural habitats in times of war, since war is the suspension of the compact of civilisation. The most you could hope for would be that the victors of your next war are environmentalists who are happy to spend whatever it takes to clean up the mess. This might be an argument in favour of arming Greenpeace.
watwut 5y ago
> this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict. It should be unthinkable to target civilians, destroy houses and people, rape and torture. And here we are, in modern wars. It would be nice to make it unthinkable to have large organizations of soldiers all about killing, but here we are.
- b0rsuk 5y ago
  Bret Devereaux is of the opinion that chemical weapons are not in use anymore simply because they're ineffective next to simple explosives. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... Maybe the simplest way to save the environment is to invent more deadly, cost effective weapons that don't harm the land as a side effect?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > chemical weapons are not in use anymore That’s got to be the most caveated statement in a blog post ever. For anyone reading casually, I really hope you’re aware Russia deployed a chemical weapon against the UK in anger as recently as 2018.
    - b0rsuk 5y ago
      Chemical weapons are used for assassination, but not for large scale warfare. More like terror weapons on civilians (Syria?) and guerilla fighters with limited resources and few alliances.
  - temp0826 5y ago
    Someone will still decide to salt the earth with depleted uranium out of spite (see iraq) even if an effective alternative exists
    - pfdietz 5y ago
hulitu 5y ago
> The damage caused by war (and industrial exploitation) is horrific. Yet there is precious little literature about the after-effects. Because the rullers want to be able to justify war everytime they need it. Look in history books accessible to the masses. War is heroic, a fight between good and evil. No indescriminate killing, no destruction, no pollution. Only those who lost were the bad guys and those who win are good ( there are exceptions, see Afganistan and Vietnam for examples). > For instance, here are articles about two major WW1 battles: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delville_Wood > The battles are described in detail, but the devastation caused to woodland itself - a complex system of soil, vegetation, fauna - is not even an afterthought. There is also the idea that the effect of the war are punctual in time. In reality war are fought many years after the war officially ends (see bomb findings in europe or china vs taiwan in asia). > While it's charming that the color of flowers is affected by soil contaminants, the vegetation layer is just the base of the trophic levels that constitute an ecosystem. > All the other life in the woodland depends on the soil and vegetation. Contamination works its way through the entire ecosystem - definitely not charming. Yes, but nobody knows about it. > I've been downvoted many times for my opinions, but the world needs a Geneva Convention that protects natural habitats in times of war. I would go further: this needs to reach a religious level of fervor, so that it would be unthinkable to put men and machinery into pristine natural environments as part of a strategy of human conflict. Geneva convention does not help. See guantanamo for examples.
- Godel_unicode 5y ago
  > Geneva convention does not help That's not true, the example of gitmo is an issue of the way that the treaty is worded not covering some situations. There are tons of horrifying things outlawed by the Geneva convention which have not happened since. See for instance the lack of massive battlefield use of chemical weapons in world war 2. The Ottawa treaty has had a similar effect on the use of landmines since. We've made a lot of progress, don't despair because it's not perfect yet.

hyperman1 5y ago

I wonder if it is possible to remove the poisoned top soil, heat it up and melt the metal, and use fractional destillation to remove it. What's leftover is probably heavily damaged by the heath, but maybe nature can re use it as a basis for new and healthy top soil.

peteradio 5y ago
At those heats the soil would burn away.
bequanna 5y ago
If you heated the soil to that point, I think you would end up with sterilized soil (or even just ash) that wouldn’t be very good for growing much.
jsilence 5y ago
Very very very expensive.

lb1lf 5y ago

-After WW2, the victorious allies dumped loads - as in, hundreds of thousands of tons - of surplus German ammunition in Norwegian waters, mostly simply by loading up old freighters with the ammo, steaming into deep waters and sinking them there. The result? We now find traces of toxins in fish caught off the dumping grounds (Mostly in the Skagerrak between Denmark and Norway, but also in the fjord right outside my office on the northwestern coast.) While dilution is a wonderful thing, I am a bit peeved that my nautical maps still show areas which are off-limits to fishing, be it recreational or professional, due to a metric shitload of mustard gas and tabun being dumped there, with a healthy sprinkling of conventional high-explosives on top just to make sure we'd never be able to clean it up properly. Sigh.

hyperman1 5y ago
There is also mustard gas dumped in the north sea near knokke, in rusting vats. Near to one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. Don't worry, citizen, it's not leaking much yet, go on holiday at the coast. https://www.gremberghe.nl/2013/07/het-mosterdgas-voor-onze-kust/ https://www.gremberghe.nl/2013/07/het-mosterdgas-voor-onze-k...
- hulitu 5y ago
  Thank god the new bombs are envirinmental friendly. I wonder why no one talks about them (state secrets ?). /s
  - lb1lf 5y ago
    -Well, there is such a thing as bio-degradable land mines in the works. [0] (At least the idea was discussed years ago - whether it is implemented in current land mines, I've no idea.) While mines are still an abomination, ensuring they are laid down with an expiry date is still progress. Of sorts. I am in the rather awkward position of hoping for development in the anti-personnel mine business - I've no illusions such an effective weapon will ever be obsolete, so the best we can hope for (sigh) is that they will at least not cause collateral casualties for decades after the conflict which caused them to be deployed in the first place. [0] http://www.metts.com.au/landminesdoc.html http://www.metts.com.au/landminesdoc.html

maeln 5y ago

Just last week, someone found a unexploded grenade from WWI there : https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/p09il7/grenade_d%C3%A9couverte_au_d%C3%A9tour_dun_sentier/ https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/p09il7/grenade_d%C3... It just goes to show the scale of the war when even after 100 years it is still common to find unexploded ammunitions.

jabl 5y ago
Farmers in France and Belgium plow up 900 tonnes of unexploded WWI munitions every year. In the more dangerous 'zone rouge', no human activity except professional cleanup crews are allowed. It is estimated that at the current rate of progress the cleanup will be done in 300-700 years. https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zone-of-france-a-forbidden-no-mans-land-poisoned-by-war/ https://www.messynessychic.com/2015/05/26/the-real-no-go-zon...
- hef19898 5y ago
  Not to forget the abandoned mines in Belgium from the Messines campaign. Up to 20 tons of unexploded explosive per mine happily rotting under Belgium farms since 1917. And all the bombs still found in Germany. And the mines in the Baltic. And in former Yugoslavia. And all the mines from the various wars in Africa. And the depleted uranium ammo from the Gulf War. And the stuff, mines and agent orange for example, left in East Asia. Quite a long list of stuff to clean up.

b0rsuk 5y ago

Tolkien fought in the trenches of WW1 and it left a mark on him. Mordor and the way orcs treat land are especially influenced by his experience. People started to call this type of landscape "moonscape". https://acoup.blog/2019/10/18/collections-the-battlefield-after-the-battle/ https://acoup.blog/2019/10/18/collections-the-battlefield-af...

rubenbe 5y ago

In Ypres, Belgium there is still a measurable increase of copper in the soil. This was investigated by a Belgian university in 2008 [0]. More anecdotal evidence is that you'll often see old ammunition next to freshly plowed fields. [0] https://www.ugent.be/bw/environment/en/research/orbit/ww1/ovam_zware_metalen_ieper_wo1-pdf https://www.ugent.be/bw/environment/en/research/orbit/ww1/ov...

juanani 5y ago

Cmon warmongers, a little more and you're there. Green bombs! tax the f out of the people profitting from selling munitions? Something along those lines? That would tank our economy, sad sad sad

whoaisme 5y ago

I think I've run into more cover on ww1 pollution than I have on the massive amounts of cancer we've dumped in iraq or Vietnam. I guess it's easier to smugly comment about how our ancestors had so little foresight instead of having to eat the fact that absolutely nothing has changed and we do the same thing even with the benefit of hindsight. I mean the highest rated comment is about trace toxins in Norway jesus.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

holoduke 5y ago

Every year I am going on a tour through northern France and Italy to map old trenches and battlezones. We have a strict policy towards ammo. Last year we found tons of shells, helmets, hundreds of live bullets and grenades. Some say it will take another 900 years before most is gone.

abbeyj 5y ago
Sounds like Visual Player 2.0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTDPmEywHE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtTDPmEywHE Edit: sorry, this was supposed to be a reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27998754
- holoduke 5y ago
  Thats the one :) awesome. Amazing that you found it. Thanks

rubenbe 5y ago

There is an "Iron Harvest" by Belgian and French farmers each year after plowing their fields. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_harvest

mdturnerphys 5y ago

Previous discussion on similar article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16936769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16936769

sgt101 5y ago

I tell you what, the next proper war will leave scars for a lot longer than 100 years.

ljm 5y ago
Scars imply healing; you can only look to the world after the industrial revolution to see how heavily wounded the planet has become. The world can recover from a dozen Chernobyls and Fukushimas, but not so easily from a species that kills its defenses and continues to fight against it.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DoreenMichele 5y ago

The arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh mentioned in the piece is a real and serious problem, but it's also the side effect of meaningful progress. Some, but not all, of the wells built to stop a quarter of a million annual deaths from disease caused by collecting surface waters is the source of the arsenic poisoning.

Gibbon1 5y ago
What I understand the screw up there was not testing each well before putting it into potable water service. It's not a new thing. My grandfather had a gig during the 1930's testing wells and springs for the USDA. My grandmother said a lot of wells and springs people were drinking from were contaminated with heavy metals and bacteria.
- DoreenMichele 5y ago
  Years ago, I did a college paper on the Bangladesh arsenic poisoning. Short wells and deep wells are fine. It's medium depth wells that are the problem because they are all drawing water from a particular rock formation that contains arsenic. No one knew that beforehand. Relief organizations went in to put a stop to a serious crisis. They succeeded. Then reports of arsenic poisoning began emerging.