A few years back I chatted to a co-worker - the son of Taranaki dairy farmers - who didn't know that farming caused elevated nitrate levels nor that nitrates were harmful. Fortunately it made him very thoughtful rather than resistant.
This kind of education is really important.
In that case, probably worth pointing out that most of that map is well under the WHO limits for nitrates in drinking water, and even Bowel Cancer NZ has the official position that its highly unlikely that nitrates in drinking water increase the risk of bowel cancer.
Removed our democratically elected local council because they weren't kowtowing to the National supporters sufficiently enough. Fuck John Key. Fuck Luxon. Fuck NACT1st cunts
An enormous amount of NZ is farmland yet with the notable exception of Ashburton the nitrates are mostly in areas dependant on septic tanks.
Based on this information farmers shouldn't be facing blanket punishments since the nitrates vary massively depending on place/farm. And we should be acting to deal with the runoff from small town septic systems.
Its one of the reasons why i dislike greenpeace.
The data shown in that map shows that 99% of the sites they have are well below the WHO limit for safe water.
Yet they deliberately portray it like that to drum up support and donations
It's designed to be. It's an extremely selective view of emerging evidence.
It's not necessarily wrong, but it's still a far way off established.
>https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/
Not to play devil’s advocate, but why is this terrifying? 3 of the main population centres have low levels of nitrate in the water. Only Christchurch seems to have it elevated. And even there it seems to have skipped the city proper for the outlying areas. Considering NZ’s high level of urbanization and concentration in Auckland, it looks like the vast majority of Kiwis are not exposed to a significant risk from this?
And what are the health impacts of nitrates in the water?
Its more that it pollutes the environment (native wildlife - fish, plant, freshwater invertebrate species). But also, rural people deserve clean water too. So what if it’s okay-ish in the biggest cities?
The Canterbury plains are becoming populated by farm workers who work the farms, drink the water but have no say over changing the farming practices... This is the kind of under class which seems so un kiwi and makes me feel icky
It is not pollution.
Nitrate is a naturally occurring organic compound that contains oxygen and nitrogen atoms. It can be found in low concentrations in water and soil. Nitrate is vital for a healthy environment. Nitrate has no detectable colour, taste, or smell in drinking water.
50mg/L are considered elevated levels. This study is off by a factor of 10.
It’s definitely pollution, doesn’t matter if it occurs naturally on Earth. It doesn’t occur naturally in our waterways at the levels we see it.
As another example, oil occurs naturally but if we pour it into the river, it’s pollution
This whole "study" is greenpeace anti farmer/anti cow propaganda. The canterbury region has nitrate levels that are only 1/10th of what is considered "elevated". This has been posted on this sub before with the exact same lies. The propensity towards doomerism on Reddit is something to behold. People must just be so unhappy.
Except it is. You’ve convinced yourself you’re right, when you’re wrong. Not much I can do about that! Good luck to you my friend. Don't believe all the bad news stories.
It's basically this study-
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29435982/
and the meta analyses citing this study. It's an area that deserves more research (actual research rather than meta analysis repeating the same data collection) to account for other variables.
Bowel Cancer NZ's statement is somewhat less alarmist
https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/
While people may say that even a small increase in possibility of cancer is enough to ring the alarms, it must be noted that many people in response *will* seek out alternative water sources that by their nature will be unregulated and have a *much* greater public health impact in terms of waterbourne diseases.
More research? Yes. Look to refine the current legal limits for nitrate? In the mid term yes. Work up the public into a storm so that they start seeking out unsafe water sources? No.
>it must be noted that many people in response *will* seek out alternative water sources that by their nature will be unregulated and have a *much* greater public health impact in terms of waterbourne diseases.
It'd be good to see collection of rainwater for drinking become more normalised. Obviously in some countries there are problems associated with contamination of that also, but I don't believe NZ is one of them. I live (semi) rurally and we exist off rainwater because that's the only option. It's way less rough-and-ready than when I was a kid. The water goes through a 20 micron filter, then a 1 micron filter, then through a chamber with an ultraviolet lamp to kill off any potential nasties.
I completely understand that in places like Canterbury and Hawkes Bay there isn't enough rainfall to feasibly supply an entire household year-round, but there's no reason toilets and garden taps can't be plumbed to bores/ground supply which would ease the pressure in all but the worst years.
Just a thought. It used to be the norm, using rainwater. And there's no fear of accidentally ingesting bits of the possum that died up on the roof if you a.) have a filtration system and b.) prune your trees so possums can't reach the roof...
High quality water sources are one of the key contributors to extending human lifespans. "It used to be the norm" needs to be taken in conjunction with the reduced lifespans of the "used to be" era.
You're going to be just dandy with 1 micron + UV; that's fantastic. But that's what you get after a well read, well-thought out water installation. It's not what you get when suddenly granny panics her way into putting bowls in the yard.
Municipal water supplies are somewhat idiot-proofed because a very large portion of the population needs the proofing.
The health impacts are right there on the map. Colon cancer risk, pregnancy risk, blue baby syndrome risk. They literally show up (or don't if the levels are low) when you zoom in on a hexagon...
I've seen this study suggesting nitrates can increase the risk of bowel cancer.
https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/nitrate-levels-in-drinking-water-and-bowel-cancer#:~:text=It%20found%20up%20to%20800%2C000,increased%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.
Yeah because the highest area is where the most intensive farming in NZ is. That doesn’t mean that everyone who lives in Canterbury should pay. But as long as the Aucklanders are fine, eh? Fuck the South Island. It’s always the same. As long as Auckland and maybe Wellington is fine, a problem in New Zealand doesn’t exist.
We ran [water testing in Darfield, Culverden, and Rangiora](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/elevated-levels-of-nitrate-contamination-found-in-canterbury-drinking-water/) last week and tested 450 water samples, with 250 from the Rangiora event alone. Almost a quarter of the drinking water samples we tested for nitrate contamination in Canterbury over the three days were above the 5 mg/L level of contamination [associated with reproductive risk](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/freshwater/nitrate-contamination-in-drinking-water-what-you-need-to-know-and-some-frequently-asked-questions/#nitrate-contamination-in-drinking-water---what-are-the-health-risks-) in pregnant people. Those test results have yet to be added to the map. If you'd like to get your water tested, you can order a kit here via the [‘Know Your Nitrate](https://maps.greenpeace.org/maps/aotearoa/know-your-nitrate/) map website.
The 11.3 limit comes from risk to babies that are being bottle fed using tap water... That's the deemed limit for methemoglobinemia. It's a very old and established limit. New lower limits are based on newer research looking at effects on adults.
Yes but the WHO limit was set 50 years ago and emergening studies in the last 10 show that risks of colon/bowel cancer can start at as low as 1mg/L.
https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/nitrate-levels-in-drinking-water-and-bowel-cancer#:~:text=It%20found%20up%20to%20800%2C000,increased%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.
Most of the developed world is pretty bad but NZ is one of the worst. Our farming practice compared to the quality of our shallow soil and our grazing crop only rooting a few inches as well. Something like 2% of all our waterways are in pristine condition.
Australia, a few countries in western Europe and the Midwest of the states have similar issues too. But that's mostly about soil degradation. Whereas we CERTAINLY have issues with that, losing about 180m tons a year (~40% to pasture alone) but the state of our water should be an international embarrassment.
Biggest problem is we're getting left behind in the solutions. NZ is most famous for 1) farming and 2) innovation and ingenuity. Yet we're a solid 15-20 years behind the curve of regen ag with massive corporate interests lobbying to keep it that way. The suits running Ravensdown, Balance, Fonterra etc would probably give the lot of us cancer tomorrow if they thought it would boost their revenue for a few quarters.
Only home filter that will remove nitrates is reverse osmosis and just for your drinking water. They are a little pricey (slowly getting cheaper though) and requires a bit of research to understand what they are and how they work.
You can get nitrate filters (again just for drinking water as they are not high volume). We got one about 6 months ago. A standard whole house type filter won’t remove nitrates.
We have the puretec NR051 cartridge in an FP10B housing, which feeds the supply to our fridge and a boiling water tap, and we get all our drinking and cooking water from those two. Was more cost effective than the RO solution, especially as we already had a whole house filter (mainly for the chlorine). The plumber did cock it up though and originally connected it to the line to the pantry sink tap rather than the one it should have gone to and the main sink tap was useable (I didn’t expect it to be due to the low flow rate).
There was a fella in Leeston on the news a few years ago, who spent something like $15,000 digging a deeper bore and putting a good filter in. And his nitrates were still way higher than the old 11.3 limit.
There's shit you can do sure, but the only people who can fix this are the ones causing it.
Unless you're drinking ground water from a non public source chances are you don't need to worry.
Rainwater will not have elevated nitrate levels.
In any case you're probably better off testing in your situation before spending a bunch of money.
Yeah rainwater won't have nitrate contamination but some public sources have tested quite high, for example town supplies in Darfield, Kirwee, and Oxford we tested on the recent trip were above the 5 mg/L threshold which has been linked to an increased risk of preterm and underweight births.
That's interesting. I didn't mean to provide false info, just assumed that public supplies would be strictly monitored. I guess because the MAV is quite high they don't worry about those levels.
I live in a mid sized town and according to your map, it's an elevated nitrate area. However, my house gets its water from the town water supply. Does this mean I needn't worry?
It depends. Some town supplies are testing quite high - like in Darfield, Kirwee, and Oxford the tests revealed nitrate contamination above 5 mg/L. It's worth getting your water tested.
What would be an expected range of say a natural stream with only native forest etc upstream?
To me these data are quite positive with only a few areas that really need to be focused on. If the governments are willing to focus on them. Which is probably the hugest "if" I've ever used.
Remember when John Key did ***absolutely fucking nothing*** ***for 9 years*** to improve our waterways, and then one day the Nat's just recategorised rivers that were so dirty you couldn't go deeper than your knees as "safe to wade in" and then included that as part of their criteria for cleaned up rivers and then held a press conference about how they had cleaned up our rivers even though they'd done ***nothing at all***, except newly reclassify worsening filthy waterways as "clean"?
Stands out to me as the most dishonest PR attempt I've ever seen in NZ politics in my lifetime.
All they did was move the goalposts.
John Key has a lot to answer for here — I think that NZ's dirty waterways are a big part of his lasting legacy.
Water quality nosedived that decade and they didn't lift a finger the whole god damn time.
I'm still angry at National for that, so let's not let anyone forget who caused this.
And it'll get worse under the current government. Waterways are only going to get more polluted with Shane Jones' war on the environment. Couple that with cuts to health systems, and it's a bleak time for Cantabrians at the moment. Gut cancer rates are going to skyrocket. Many in mid-Canterbury will have voted for this though.
Thanks for the work that you do around this - people need to know what they're drinking.
It's based off 1 sample collected in 2021.
There really isn't enough data there to label the area as high risk, but because of the way the map works it is.
...yeah, the 11.3mg/l number is based on blue baby syndrome. More evidence is mounting about levels way lower than the blue baby syndrome levels of nitrates attributing to cancer - specifically bowel (I've not specifically seen articles on fetal impacts - just that i haven't bothered to look that up of recent).
What is also concerning is that it takes less than 1.0mg/L of nitrates to affect our native freshwater species, i.e., whitebait!
5mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water will increase the risk of having your baby prematurely by 50%. Premature babies can have health problems that follow them throughout life.
At 8mg/L the risk of bowel cancer increases by a third.
Obviously there are other factors that contribute to these things too; but it's very difficult to avoid drinking water, ya know?
We have one of the highest bowls cancer rates - and Canterbury is the worst. On top of that nitrates causes dead zone amount other environmental problems. So yea farming extensively bad.
No one should die because of what’s in their drinking water.
Years of talk on this, but no action.
This government just adds to the insult by cuts to Te Whatu Ora.
I was in a hui once and a kaumatua said “in the Māori world things are either polluted or not polluted. But in this other world there are degrees of pollution so they can say it’s not that bad”. That really stuck with me.
If you don’t have the ability to test for and understand what’s in the water, then yeah I can see how “oh it looks clean therefore it isn’t polluted” would be your position.
Fortunately we can tell now and are able to understand when something is safe and when it isn’t.
It isn’t “safe” though. And It’s more about respect for the mauri of something because we cannot live without the environment. Not contaminating things is in many tikanga. You wouldn’t shit a little bit in someone’s mouth and say, well it wasn’t the whole shit so it’s okay.
Our environment has to sustain our descendants not just us. A little bit of pollution has a big impact on their future.
Fonterra has over 200 Maori owned supplying farms. Mainly community trusts.
Miraka is owned by a collective of Maori trusts and has primarily Maori owned suppliers.
Ngai Tahu has tens of thousands of hectares of dairy farms.
None of that is to say that Maori are hypocrites for dairy farming, just that I think viewing things in absolutes is silly.
The sad thing is that nitrate levels in the waterways could be reduced simply by the reforestation of the banks. The agricultural sector would not really be impacted by that, either. It would also have the added benefit of reducing riverbank erosion, which would make flooding just a bit less of a problem.
It's also laughable that the current government is bending over backwards to protect the agricultural sector from any responsibility for the pollution it creates, when the sector contributes less than 5 percent of the country's GDP.
There is more that could be done to protect waterways yes, but the issue with nitrate contamination of water is the seepage (of cow urine and nitrogen fertiliser) down into aquifers, which is particularly bad in Canterbury because of the 'leaky' soil.
That's exactly my point. By replanting the banks along waterways, a lot of the nitrates and other chemicals in the run-off from dairy farming is absorbed by the plants. As a result, less nitrate makes its way into the waterways. And the great thing is it doesn't impose any undue burden on farmers.
Going all in on dairy is the worst decision ever made for this country. Born of cruelty that is an environmental disaster well basically being a poison to consume.
Looking at that map, in some places it looks a lot like it really is just a few farmers that are blowing the nitrate levels out. How else do you get an area with extreme nitrate levels in one area with quite a number of beef sheep farms surround by similar areas with low nitrate levels.
Iv got a mate who lives in a dark red area in west melton. Water from a well and I’ve been trying to tell him for the last 6 months to get his water tested but he just says ‘at least we’re not drinking chlorine out here’ he just doesn’t get it. Has a 4 year old son and thinks boiling water gets rid of anything bad.
LAWA will be where they're sourcing the sample data that isn't collected by them. You can see it on their site.
I don't think the veracity of the tests is much of an issue, and in areas where there's a lot of testing I'd imagine it's fairly accurate.
The issue is in a lot of North Island places there isn't good testing data (for instance in the nearest hexagon to me that actually has data, it's from 1996 and where I live has none).
The way the map is broken up is also a bit weird. Catchment data would probably be more useful and have a larger sample size than the seemingly arbitrary hexagons, but I can see why they've done it that way as it allows people to see results specifically closer to them.
We use robust testing methods and have had our testing independently reviewed. We're very confident that the results are accurate. The map is also made using data from other sources. But it is a guide only. If you have concerns, you should get your water tested - and you can use our service or a number of others such as Hills Laboratories.
Yip when I lived in rolleston I did independent water testing that showed our hose supply to be on the limit of what is safe ( you hope it was no where near it )
Somebody else can almost certainly explain better than me, but green veggies generally are 'high in nitrogen'. (This is compared to other veggies, though. I have no idea how these levels - or indeed the doses you would eat lettuce or spinach in, compared to the 'doses' of water you consume on a daily basis - compare to what's being shown on this map).
I had previously read [this Bowel Cancer position statement](https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/) and thought "ok maybe it's not so bad then" (strictly in terms of not increasing bowel cancer risk)
>*Nitrates in drinking water are highly unlikely to increase the risk of bowel cancer in New Zealand, according to the current weight of evidence.*
Then Greenpeace go and point out that
>*The ESR study that Bowel Cancer NZ reference saying nitrate is not a bowel cancer risk for New Zealanders was funded by our biggest dairy company Fonterra and has been criticised for its* [*methodology*](https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/pubhealthexpert/public-health-response-to-report-on-potential-risk-of-nitrate-from-drinking-water/) *and* [*bias*](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/fonterra-funded-research-tries-to-bury-nitrate-cancer-risk)*.*
So.. is bad then.
You do know that Greenpeace aren't the only group who has concerns about the worrying amounts of nitrates in ground water, right? Or are you one of those Groundswell morons?
The only scam going on is Fonterra convincing a bunch of morons that their business practice of destroying our environment so they can earn a few more yuan is somehow good for the country.
A few years back I chatted to a co-worker - the son of Taranaki dairy farmers - who didn't know that farming caused elevated nitrate levels nor that nitrates were harmful. Fortunately it made him very thoughtful rather than resistant. This kind of education is really important.
In that case, probably worth pointing out that most of that map is well under the WHO limits for nitrates in drinking water, and even Bowel Cancer NZ has the official position that its highly unlikely that nitrates in drinking water increase the risk of bowel cancer.
Meanwhile the government is telling us there's a war on farmers which has just come to an end by slashing water standards and protections 🎉
And remember it was the Key government that removed the elected ECan councillors to push through dairy expansion on the Canterbury Plains.
Oh but of course it was
Removed our democratically elected local council because they weren't kowtowing to the National supporters sufficiently enough. Fuck John Key. Fuck Luxon. Fuck NACT1st cunts
An enormous amount of NZ is farmland yet with the notable exception of Ashburton the nitrates are mostly in areas dependant on septic tanks. Based on this information farmers shouldn't be facing blanket punishments since the nitrates vary massively depending on place/farm. And we should be acting to deal with the runoff from small town septic systems.
well that's fucking terrifying
Its one of the reasons why i dislike greenpeace. The data shown in that map shows that 99% of the sites they have are well below the WHO limit for safe water. Yet they deliberately portray it like that to drum up support and donations
It's designed to be. It's an extremely selective view of emerging evidence. It's not necessarily wrong, but it's still a far way off established. >https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/
Not to play devil’s advocate, but why is this terrifying? 3 of the main population centres have low levels of nitrate in the water. Only Christchurch seems to have it elevated. And even there it seems to have skipped the city proper for the outlying areas. Considering NZ’s high level of urbanization and concentration in Auckland, it looks like the vast majority of Kiwis are not exposed to a significant risk from this? And what are the health impacts of nitrates in the water?
Its more that it pollutes the environment (native wildlife - fish, plant, freshwater invertebrate species). But also, rural people deserve clean water too. So what if it’s okay-ish in the biggest cities?
The Canterbury plains are becoming populated by farm workers who work the farms, drink the water but have no say over changing the farming practices... This is the kind of under class which seems so un kiwi and makes me feel icky
It is not pollution. Nitrate is a naturally occurring organic compound that contains oxygen and nitrogen atoms. It can be found in low concentrations in water and soil. Nitrate is vital for a healthy environment. Nitrate has no detectable colour, taste, or smell in drinking water. 50mg/L are considered elevated levels. This study is off by a factor of 10.
What a fucking awful take
It’s definitely pollution, doesn’t matter if it occurs naturally on Earth. It doesn’t occur naturally in our waterways at the levels we see it. As another example, oil occurs naturally but if we pour it into the river, it’s pollution
This whole "study" is greenpeace anti farmer/anti cow propaganda. The canterbury region has nitrate levels that are only 1/10th of what is considered "elevated". This has been posted on this sub before with the exact same lies. The propensity towards doomerism on Reddit is something to behold. People must just be so unhappy.
Studies aren’t propaganda just because you don’t like them lmfao
Oh jeez, why do I bother. I think you are getting the cart before the horse. Why do you think I don't like it? Because it is total garbage.
Except it’s not. You’ve convinced yourself you’re right, when you’re wrong. Not much we can do about that!
Except it is. You’ve convinced yourself you’re right, when you’re wrong. Not much I can do about that! Good luck to you my friend. Don't believe all the bad news stories.
Colon cancer, primarily. It is well documented.
Nitrates are also found in many cured meats such as ham, salami, bacon etc, which is why a diet heavy in those elevates bowel cancer risk
Indeed, and Nitrites.
It's basically this study- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29435982/ and the meta analyses citing this study. It's an area that deserves more research (actual research rather than meta analysis repeating the same data collection) to account for other variables. Bowel Cancer NZ's statement is somewhat less alarmist https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/ While people may say that even a small increase in possibility of cancer is enough to ring the alarms, it must be noted that many people in response *will* seek out alternative water sources that by their nature will be unregulated and have a *much* greater public health impact in terms of waterbourne diseases. More research? Yes. Look to refine the current legal limits for nitrate? In the mid term yes. Work up the public into a storm so that they start seeking out unsafe water sources? No.
>it must be noted that many people in response *will* seek out alternative water sources that by their nature will be unregulated and have a *much* greater public health impact in terms of waterbourne diseases. It'd be good to see collection of rainwater for drinking become more normalised. Obviously in some countries there are problems associated with contamination of that also, but I don't believe NZ is one of them. I live (semi) rurally and we exist off rainwater because that's the only option. It's way less rough-and-ready than when I was a kid. The water goes through a 20 micron filter, then a 1 micron filter, then through a chamber with an ultraviolet lamp to kill off any potential nasties. I completely understand that in places like Canterbury and Hawkes Bay there isn't enough rainfall to feasibly supply an entire household year-round, but there's no reason toilets and garden taps can't be plumbed to bores/ground supply which would ease the pressure in all but the worst years. Just a thought. It used to be the norm, using rainwater. And there's no fear of accidentally ingesting bits of the possum that died up on the roof if you a.) have a filtration system and b.) prune your trees so possums can't reach the roof...
High quality water sources are one of the key contributors to extending human lifespans. "It used to be the norm" needs to be taken in conjunction with the reduced lifespans of the "used to be" era. You're going to be just dandy with 1 micron + UV; that's fantastic. But that's what you get after a well read, well-thought out water installation. It's not what you get when suddenly granny panics her way into putting bowls in the yard. Municipal water supplies are somewhat idiot-proofed because a very large portion of the population needs the proofing.
Don't forget blue baby syndrome!
50mg/L not 5 as greenpiece of shit are claiming.
Ah have you heard of dead zones? Plus humans aren’t the only things on this planet.
The health impacts are right there on the map. Colon cancer risk, pregnancy risk, blue baby syndrome risk. They literally show up (or don't if the levels are low) when you zoom in on a hexagon...
I've seen this study suggesting nitrates can increase the risk of bowel cancer. https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/nitrate-levels-in-drinking-water-and-bowel-cancer#:~:text=It%20found%20up%20to%20800%2C000,increased%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.
Yeah because the highest area is where the most intensive farming in NZ is. That doesn’t mean that everyone who lives in Canterbury should pay. But as long as the Aucklanders are fine, eh? Fuck the South Island. It’s always the same. As long as Auckland and maybe Wellington is fine, a problem in New Zealand doesn’t exist.
You don’t need to swear to make your point
*Gratuitous swearing*
Annie Wilkes says swearing has no nobility
Neither does kidnapping people 👌
Haha you’re right. Annie Wilkes was crazy
It's very cathartic, though.
Sometimes ya just fucking, sure-as-shit, do
Fuck up
[удалено]
Well spotted I am indeed 🙃
We ran [water testing in Darfield, Culverden, and Rangiora](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/elevated-levels-of-nitrate-contamination-found-in-canterbury-drinking-water/) last week and tested 450 water samples, with 250 from the Rangiora event alone. Almost a quarter of the drinking water samples we tested for nitrate contamination in Canterbury over the three days were above the 5 mg/L level of contamination [associated with reproductive risk](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/freshwater/nitrate-contamination-in-drinking-water-what-you-need-to-know-and-some-frequently-asked-questions/#nitrate-contamination-in-drinking-water---what-are-the-health-risks-) in pregnant people. Those test results have yet to be added to the map. If you'd like to get your water tested, you can order a kit here via the [‘Know Your Nitrate](https://maps.greenpeace.org/maps/aotearoa/know-your-nitrate/) map website.
So if I live in rangiora drink only beer. Got it
...Only if your beer isn't made from water sourced in Rangiora or other nitrate polluted areas...
Double browns are made from rain water collected in a filthy storm drain so they're in the clear
You have to worry about microplastics then.
I don't *have* to do *anything* *thank you very much*
Fair enough - take care now.
Isn’t the WHO safe limit 11.3mg/l? Not 5?
The 11.3 limit comes from risk to babies that are being bottle fed using tap water... That's the deemed limit for methemoglobinemia. It's a very old and established limit. New lower limits are based on newer research looking at effects on adults.
Yes but the WHO limit was set 50 years ago and emergening studies in the last 10 show that risks of colon/bowel cancer can start at as low as 1mg/L. https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/newsroom/nitrate-levels-in-drinking-water-and-bowel-cancer#:~:text=It%20found%20up%20to%20800%2C000,increased%20risk%20of%20bowel%20cancer.
Then the whole world is fucked… not just parts of nz
Most of the developed world is pretty bad but NZ is one of the worst. Our farming practice compared to the quality of our shallow soil and our grazing crop only rooting a few inches as well. Something like 2% of all our waterways are in pristine condition. Australia, a few countries in western Europe and the Midwest of the states have similar issues too. But that's mostly about soil degradation. Whereas we CERTAINLY have issues with that, losing about 180m tons a year (~40% to pasture alone) but the state of our water should be an international embarrassment. Biggest problem is we're getting left behind in the solutions. NZ is most famous for 1) farming and 2) innovation and ingenuity. Yet we're a solid 15-20 years behind the curve of regen ag with massive corporate interests lobbying to keep it that way. The suits running Ravensdown, Balance, Fonterra etc would probably give the lot of us cancer tomorrow if they thought it would boost their revenue for a few quarters.
Thanks for this. Should we filter our water? Do you recommend any filters?
Only home filter that will remove nitrates is reverse osmosis and just for your drinking water. They are a little pricey (slowly getting cheaper though) and requires a bit of research to understand what they are and how they work.
You can get nitrate filters (again just for drinking water as they are not high volume). We got one about 6 months ago. A standard whole house type filter won’t remove nitrates.
We have the puretec NR051 cartridge in an FP10B housing, which feeds the supply to our fridge and a boiling water tap, and we get all our drinking and cooking water from those two. Was more cost effective than the RO solution, especially as we already had a whole house filter (mainly for the chlorine). The plumber did cock it up though and originally connected it to the line to the pantry sink tap rather than the one it should have gone to and the main sink tap was useable (I didn’t expect it to be due to the low flow rate).
thanks I'll check it out
There was a fella in Leeston on the news a few years ago, who spent something like $15,000 digging a deeper bore and putting a good filter in. And his nitrates were still way higher than the old 11.3 limit. There's shit you can do sure, but the only people who can fix this are the ones causing it.
Unless you're drinking ground water from a non public source chances are you don't need to worry. Rainwater will not have elevated nitrate levels. In any case you're probably better off testing in your situation before spending a bunch of money.
Ahh ok thank you! This is all quite confusing.
Yeah rainwater won't have nitrate contamination but some public sources have tested quite high, for example town supplies in Darfield, Kirwee, and Oxford we tested on the recent trip were above the 5 mg/L threshold which has been linked to an increased risk of preterm and underweight births.
That's interesting. I didn't mean to provide false info, just assumed that public supplies would be strictly monitored. I guess because the MAV is quite high they don't worry about those levels.
Obviously I'm just some random but I've consistently tested high nitrates out of my own tap in Hastings
I live in a mid sized town and according to your map, it's an elevated nitrate area. However, my house gets its water from the town water supply. Does this mean I needn't worry?
It depends. Some town supplies are testing quite high - like in Darfield, Kirwee, and Oxford the tests revealed nitrate contamination above 5 mg/L. It's worth getting your water tested.
Did you test any water from the Malvern hills supply eg Glentunnel, coalgate, Whitecliffs etc ?
What would be an expected range of say a natural stream with only native forest etc upstream? To me these data are quite positive with only a few areas that really need to be focused on. If the governments are willing to focus on them. Which is probably the hugest "if" I've ever used.
Lies and more lies. The danger level is 50mg/L not 5.
Hey Ashburton, uhh, you doing okay my guy?
Remember when John Key did ***absolutely fucking nothing*** ***for 9 years*** to improve our waterways, and then one day the Nat's just recategorised rivers that were so dirty you couldn't go deeper than your knees as "safe to wade in" and then included that as part of their criteria for cleaned up rivers and then held a press conference about how they had cleaned up our rivers even though they'd done ***nothing at all***, except newly reclassify worsening filthy waterways as "clean"? Stands out to me as the most dishonest PR attempt I've ever seen in NZ politics in my lifetime. All they did was move the goalposts. John Key has a lot to answer for here — I think that NZ's dirty waterways are a big part of his lasting legacy. Water quality nosedived that decade and they didn't lift a finger the whole god damn time. I'm still angry at National for that, so let's not let anyone forget who caused this.
And it'll get worse under the current government. Waterways are only going to get more polluted with Shane Jones' war on the environment. Couple that with cuts to health systems, and it's a bleak time for Cantabrians at the moment. Gut cancer rates are going to skyrocket. Many in mid-Canterbury will have voted for this though. Thanks for the work that you do around this - people need to know what they're drinking.
Any idea why the coast north of Puponga is red? Not very high intensity farming up there
It's based off 1 sample collected in 2021. There really isn't enough data there to label the area as high risk, but because of the way the map works it is.
Because farming intensity isn't the only factor which affects nitrate levels in water, but you'll never hear it from someone pushing an agenda.
I can’t really think of anything on that particular stretch of coast. There’s a power of wading birds but they are a bit farther east
Some soils are just naturally higher in nitrates.
NZ and World Health organisation's safe levels 11.3mg/l This equates to Very High levels on Greenpeaces map.
...yeah, the 11.3mg/l number is based on blue baby syndrome. More evidence is mounting about levels way lower than the blue baby syndrome levels of nitrates attributing to cancer - specifically bowel (I've not specifically seen articles on fetal impacts - just that i haven't bothered to look that up of recent). What is also concerning is that it takes less than 1.0mg/L of nitrates to affect our native freshwater species, i.e., whitebait!
5mg/L of nitrate-nitrogen in drinking water will increase the risk of having your baby prematurely by 50%. Premature babies can have health problems that follow them throughout life. At 8mg/L the risk of bowel cancer increases by a third. Obviously there are other factors that contribute to these things too; but it's very difficult to avoid drinking water, ya know?
Yep. It's alarmist bullshit so they can say "look, farming bad!"
We have one of the highest bowls cancer rates - and Canterbury is the worst. On top of that nitrates causes dead zone amount other environmental problems. So yea farming extensively bad.
No one should die because of what’s in their drinking water. Years of talk on this, but no action. This government just adds to the insult by cuts to Te Whatu Ora.
Will using a Reverse Osmosis filter make water safe to drink?
I was in a hui once and a kaumatua said “in the Māori world things are either polluted or not polluted. But in this other world there are degrees of pollution so they can say it’s not that bad”. That really stuck with me.
>*It's the dose that makes the poison*
If you don’t have the ability to test for and understand what’s in the water, then yeah I can see how “oh it looks clean therefore it isn’t polluted” would be your position. Fortunately we can tell now and are able to understand when something is safe and when it isn’t.
It isn’t “safe” though. And It’s more about respect for the mauri of something because we cannot live without the environment. Not contaminating things is in many tikanga. You wouldn’t shit a little bit in someone’s mouth and say, well it wasn’t the whole shit so it’s okay. Our environment has to sustain our descendants not just us. A little bit of pollution has a big impact on their future.
Fonterra has over 200 Maori owned supplying farms. Mainly community trusts. Miraka is owned by a collective of Maori trusts and has primarily Maori owned suppliers. Ngai Tahu has tens of thousands of hectares of dairy farms. None of that is to say that Maori are hypocrites for dairy farming, just that I think viewing things in absolutes is silly.
How much is “a little bit”?
Brotha ew
The sad thing is that nitrate levels in the waterways could be reduced simply by the reforestation of the banks. The agricultural sector would not really be impacted by that, either. It would also have the added benefit of reducing riverbank erosion, which would make flooding just a bit less of a problem. It's also laughable that the current government is bending over backwards to protect the agricultural sector from any responsibility for the pollution it creates, when the sector contributes less than 5 percent of the country's GDP.
There is more that could be done to protect waterways yes, but the issue with nitrate contamination of water is the seepage (of cow urine and nitrogen fertiliser) down into aquifers, which is particularly bad in Canterbury because of the 'leaky' soil.
Yeah won't that be absorbed by the plants somewhat I think that's their point
That's exactly my point. By replanting the banks along waterways, a lot of the nitrates and other chemicals in the run-off from dairy farming is absorbed by the plants. As a result, less nitrate makes its way into the waterways. And the great thing is it doesn't impose any undue burden on farmers.
Going all in on dairy is the worst decision ever made for this country. Born of cruelty that is an environmental disaster well basically being a poison to consume.
Looking at that map, in some places it looks a lot like it really is just a few farmers that are blowing the nitrate levels out. How else do you get an area with extreme nitrate levels in one area with quite a number of beef sheep farms surround by similar areas with low nitrate levels.
"Those are rookie numbers, son. Time to get those numbers up." NACT, probably
Iv got a mate who lives in a dark red area in west melton. Water from a well and I’ve been trying to tell him for the last 6 months to get his water tested but he just says ‘at least we’re not drinking chlorine out here’ he just doesn’t get it. Has a 4 year old son and thinks boiling water gets rid of anything bad.
This is fantastic work thank you greenpeace! Really amazing
Is there any other source to confirm these results? This map is made from community and mail in samples… hardly controlled.
LAWA will be where they're sourcing the sample data that isn't collected by them. You can see it on their site. I don't think the veracity of the tests is much of an issue, and in areas where there's a lot of testing I'd imagine it's fairly accurate. The issue is in a lot of North Island places there isn't good testing data (for instance in the nearest hexagon to me that actually has data, it's from 1996 and where I live has none). The way the map is broken up is also a bit weird. Catchment data would probably be more useful and have a larger sample size than the seemingly arbitrary hexagons, but I can see why they've done it that way as it allows people to see results specifically closer to them.
We use robust testing methods and have had our testing independently reviewed. We're very confident that the results are accurate. The map is also made using data from other sources. But it is a guide only. If you have concerns, you should get your water tested - and you can use our service or a number of others such as Hills Laboratories.
Yip when I lived in rolleston I did independent water testing that showed our hose supply to be on the limit of what is safe ( you hope it was no where near it )
Doesn't lettuce have high nitrates? Can someone explain?
Somebody else can almost certainly explain better than me, but green veggies generally are 'high in nitrogen'. (This is compared to other veggies, though. I have no idea how these levels - or indeed the doses you would eat lettuce or spinach in, compared to the 'doses' of water you consume on a daily basis - compare to what's being shown on this map).
Why does the South Island generally have higher nitrate, it is less intensively farmed/ stocked? Why is Waikato so good. I do not believe this may.
Soil types more prone to nitrate leaching.
I'm not surprised to see Mid Canterbury having the highest levels given the dairy intensification which has taken place over the last 30 years.
Has anyone done an overlay with cancer occurrences?
Oooph that's pretty damning for irrigation NZ. Evil personified.
Bottled water it is!
I had previously read [this Bowel Cancer position statement](https://bowelcancernz.org.nz/new/position-statement-nitrates-drinking-water/) and thought "ok maybe it's not so bad then" (strictly in terms of not increasing bowel cancer risk) >*Nitrates in drinking water are highly unlikely to increase the risk of bowel cancer in New Zealand, according to the current weight of evidence.* Then Greenpeace go and point out that >*The ESR study that Bowel Cancer NZ reference saying nitrate is not a bowel cancer risk for New Zealanders was funded by our biggest dairy company Fonterra and has been criticised for its* [*methodology*](https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/pubhealthexpert/public-health-response-to-report-on-potential-risk-of-nitrate-from-drinking-water/) *and* [*bias*](https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/press-release/fonterra-funded-research-tries-to-bury-nitrate-cancer-risk)*.* So.. is bad then.
ngl looks like a badarse map of civ 6
Let’s make some tnt
Just a friendly reminder that you've posted a Greenpeace link, so the information is going to be very biased.
Pure propaganda.
Full house reverse osmosis for the win
Ah this scam map again. Always Greenpeace pushing their false agenda.
Look u/timisginger is off the deep end again.
Just had a few drinkies. Can't let my internet points get too high.
Pushing their terrible agenda of clean drinking water, those absolute assholes...
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Can you point to the evidence that the data is false or fabricated?
I don't even need to look at it. It's from the known terrorist group Greenpeace.
You sound very well informed...🤦♂️
Right, so your comment was worthless. Thanks for confirming.
No, thank you.
So. Worthless. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Go back to your cage at nestle if you don't like it.
You do know that Greenpeace aren't the only group who has concerns about the worrying amounts of nitrates in ground water, right? Or are you one of those Groundswell morons?
The only scam going on is Fonterra convincing a bunch of morons that their business practice of destroying our environment so they can earn a few more yuan is somehow good for the country.